LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

©lap, _ (l!n?ijriB¥ 1» 

- - -_(^r;(r> 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



PniCE 40 CENTS, 



^r^t/-^-^y\ 



LOCAL OPTION 



AND 



tmmt iLmAtiBu 






BY I. W. QUINBY. 



COLUMBUS, O.: 

CoTT & Hann, Publishers, 
1880. 



M 



HISTORY OF 

LOCAL OPTION 



AND 



WITH THE SPEECHES AND VOTE 

ON THE 

QUINBY LOCAL OPTION BILL 

IN THE SIXTY-;PHIRD GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 



2±i ' ^" " 

' V/^ '<5 CONTAINING ALSO 

LIQUOR STATUTES OF OHIO NOW IN FORCE, 

COPIES OF PROPOSED LOCAL OPTION BILLS. 



AND MUCH OTHER LEGAL MATTER PERTAINING TO THE 
TEMPERANCE QUESTION.. 



Vv,^ ISSO. .^^/ 



COLUMBUS, OSi;. 

CoTT & Hann, Publishers, 
i88o. 



7h 



HY508G 

. O 3 G\ ^ 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1880, by 

J.W. QUINBY, 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 



PREFACE. 



T OCAL Option in the sale, or non-sale of liquors, to 
^—^ be determined by the electors of the townships, or 
villages, is, to-day, attracting more attention than any 
other one question in the State. 

Not only is the traffic objectionable and iniquitous in 
the eyes of the moral classes alone, but by the increasing 
number of criminal prosecutions in our Courts, and the 
crowded condition of all of our penal and reformatory in- 
stitutions, it has become very obnoxious and expensive to 
the taxpayers, who have to foot the bills. 

The people are determined to be heard upon this ques- 
tion. Many have believed, and yet believe, that the nec- 
essary legislation may be secured through existing political 
parties. Should this hope not be realized in due time, 
there may be a rapid disintegration and dissolving of 
present parties, and the building up of a party that will 
give heed to the voice of the people on this question. 
Patience sometinaes ceases to be a virtue. It ought not 
to be made a party question. It ought to be kept on a 
higher plane than a political one — in a purer atmosphere. 

At the suggestion of friends interested in the question , 
this little volume has been prepared. It has been done 
hastily, in such hours as could be spared from other labors. 



IV. ■ 

Imperfections may be discovered. If so, let them be 
kindly passed by without criticism. 

It contains a brief history of the struggle for Local 
Option in the Ohio Legislature in 1879, ^^^^ ^^^ speeches 
made in the House of Representatives in the first day's 
debate on the bill. Also, the Liquor Statutes of Ohio, 
and something of their history, a brief consideration of the 
Question of Taxation on the Sales of Liquors, and other 
information that may prove to be useful. The Bills pro- 
posed by Hon. G. T. Stewart and Judge Thompson are 
presented in an Appendix. 

It was thought best to limit its size, and publish it in 
pamphlet form, that the price might prove no hindrance 
to its circulation. 

THE AUTHOR. 

Wilmington, O,, February 4, 1880. 



CONTENTS: 



Introducjory .... I 

The Quinby Local Option Bill — 

The Text of the Bill 12 

What the Newspapers Had to Say of It . , . 16 

The People Heard From 24 

Petitions Presented for the Bill 26 

The Bill Endorsed at PubHc Meetings .... 28 

Constitutionality of the Bill .-....•.. 32 

The Bill in Committee 46 

Speech on the Engrossment of the Bill .... - 48 

Vote on the Engrossment of the Bill 59 

The Bill on Its Third Reading — Final Vote . . 61 
The Debate in the House — 

Speech of Mr. Quinby 66 

r Speech of Mr. Hardy 83 

Speech of Mr. Townsend 85 

Speech of Mr. Oglevee 91 

Speech of Mr. Bohl 95 

Speech of Mr. Alexander 98 

Speech of Mr. Siefert ....... 102 

Speech of Mr. Bloom 103 

Speech ot Mr. Norton 109 

Speech of Mr. Hitchcock 118 

Speech of Mr. Luccock 125 

Speech of Mr. Sullivan 130 

History OF Temperance Legislation IN Ohio . , . 134 

The^Liquor Statutes of Ohio Now in Force . . . 142 



VI. 

The Question of Taxation of Liquors 148 

Conclusion 151 

Appendix — 

Text of Bill Proposed by Hon. G. T. Stewart . 154 

Text of Bill Proposed by Judge Thompson . . 159 

Text of the Eylar Bill 160 

The Pennsylvania Local Option License Law . . 162 

Remonstrance of Ohio Liquor Dealers' Assoc'n . 163 



LOCAL OPTION 

AND 

TEMPERANCE LEGISLATION IN OHIO. 



CHAPTER I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

THE imperfect execution of the present temperance 
laws of the State, and the unsatisfactory results ob- 
tained in their enforcement, has brought about a feeling on 
the part of a large majority of the people, that there should 
be some more practical form of Temperance legislation. 
Especially is this feeling strong in all rural communities, 
and in the villages. 

Since the amendment to Section 199, of the Municipal 
Code by the legislature in April, 1875, by which city and 
village councils were shorn of their power of restraining 
and prohibiting ale, beer, and porter houses and shops, 
this feeling has-been greatly intensified. That amendment 
struck down at one blow, all the McConnellsville ordinan- 
ces in the State. That section of the statute left an 
optionary power with city and village councils to adopt 
ordinances, restraining and prohibiting the keeping of ale, 
beer, and porter houses or shops, and places of notorious 
and habitual resort for tippling and intemperance. This 
power was local to each village and had been exercised or 
not as a majority of the council might determine. Elec- 
tions of members of the council in many villages were 
closely looked after. Their views in regard to . the es- 
tablishment or enforcement of these ordinances were 



2 LOCAL 'OPTION IN OHIO. 

carefully inquired into by their fellow citizens. Those 
who favored the ordinances, selected men favorable to their 
enforcement and placed their names upon a ticket. 
Those who were opposed to their enforcement, select- 
ed men and placed their names upon another ticket. The 
question of the upholding of the ordinances depended up- 
on the result. After an ordinance was once established, 
it was seldom, however, that a council was elected that had 
the hardihood to repeal it. 

With the enforcement of the ordinances in the villages, 
the saloon men cast their eyes upon the fair lands that lay 
outside corporation Hmits, and went out to possess them. 
They established beer-gardens and ale shops outside, 
where councils could not restrain, and marshals could not 
arrest. They were established, in many unincorporated 
villages and hamlets, where before, saloons had been un- 
known. The people of the townships became alarmed. 
The question suggested itself to them, why not they have 
a voice, an option, as to whether ale, beer, and porter 
houses should be established in their midst. Discussion 
grew upon the subject and local option was demanded by 
the people. Legislation upon the question was demand- 
ed. Local option to the people of a township or county in 
the State of Ohio, on the sale of liquors was a new ques- 
tion, comparatively, 

Under the old constitution, recognizing license, authority 
by legislative enactment had at times been given to 
townships to vote upon the question of license. On 
March 2, 1846, an act was passed by the legislature entitled 
* * An act to regulate the granting of licenses and regula- 
ting taverns, in the county of Ashtabula." It provided, 
that at the annual township elections, for the election of 
township officers, it was lawful for each elector to write or 
print on his ticket the word *' hcense," or the words " no 
license," and it made it the duty of the clerk ot the election 
to count the votes for or against a license and certify the 



INTRODUCTORY. 3 

count to the court of common pleas. And it made it the 
duty of the court when a majority of the vote cast in any 
township was in favor of Hcense, at their discretion, to 
grant or refuse a license to any applicant residing in such 
township notwithstanding he complied with the provisions 
of the then existing law, by which licenses were granted ; 
and in case a majority of the vote cast was against license, 
it made it unlawful for the court to grant a Hcense to any 
person to retail ardent spirits in such township. 

By a general act of the legislature passed February 3, 
1845, authority was given to the people in all cases to re- 
monstrate to the court against the granting of license, that 
might be petitioned for, and made it the duty of the court 
to consider the same, ''whether such remonstrance shall 
contain any statement of facts other than the general dis- 
sent of the remonstrants or not, " and on consideration 
thereof, the court might grant or refuse the license "in 
its discretion, notwithstanding the applicant may have 
proved all the qualifications required by law to authorize 
the court to grant such license." These statutes gave to 
the people the right to be heard on the question before 
the court that had authority to grant such licenses. And 
in the event that the vote of the township was against 
license, no sales of liquor in less quantity than one quart, 
could be made. 

There was also passed in February, 1847 • ''An 
Act regulating the sale of Intoxicating Liquors," which 
extended in its operations and provisions only to the 
counties of Cuyahoga, Franklin, Geauga, Lake, Ashta- 
bula, Preble and Marion. By this act the right to grant 
licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors was deter- 
mined by the votes of the qualified electors at the an- 
nual township elections. The ballots were to have written 
or printed thereon the word "license" or the words " no 
license." If a majority of the electors voted for "no 
license " it was unlawful for the court or any other authori- 



4 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. ..^ 

ty whatever, to grant any license to sell intoxicating or 
spirituous liquors in such township during the year next 
succeeding the day on which the vote was taken. 

This was, substantially, a local option liquor law, but 
limited in the number of counties in which it had force and 
effect to those named. By virtue of the authority therein 
granted sales of liquor were entirely suspended in many of 
the townships in those counties. By the adoption of the 
new constitution in 185 1, prohibiting the granting of 
license, this suatute was rendered a nullity, and in the 
lapse of time since, has been almost forgotten. 

Under the license laws of other States, at the present 
time, the people are to a considerable extent protected 
from an indiscriminate sale of intoxicants, and the dealer 
put under bonds that he do not abuse the power granted him. 

Under the Statutes of Texas of 1867, no license shall 
be issued to sell at retail, spirituous, vinous, and other 
liquors in quantities less than a quart, until the applicant 
shall give bond with two sufficient sureties in the sum of 
;^i,ooo, that he shall keep an orderly house, and that 
he will not permit a sale of intoxicating hquors, to be 
made to minors under sixteen, nor to students. 

In 1876, the Legislature passed a law, which, it is said 
has been found to be practical and readily enforced in the 
townships adopting it. Under this law it is made the duty 
of the County Commissioners, upon petition of one-fourth 
of the qualified voters of any township, to order an election, 
to be held on the first Monday in May in each year, to 
determine whether liquors shall be sold in such township. 
Those favoring the prohibition of the sale of spirituous 
liquors in such township shall place upon their ticket the 
word *' Hcense. " If a majority of the votes cast favor pro- 
hibition, then it shall be unlawful for the County Commis- 
sioners to license the sale of spirituous liquors : but if a 
majority favor the sale, then license may be granted to sell 
spirituous liquors in such township. 



INTRODUCTORY. 5 

North Carolinia has a somewhat similar law, passed in 
1874. Other of the States have laws of more or less simi- 
larity, in respect to the granting of hcense for the sale of 
intoxicating liquors, beer, ale and wine, depending upon 
the consent of the people, or village or city councils. In 
the State of Mississippi, before there can be any sales 
made, the written consent of the men and women of lawful 
age must first be obtained, who reside in the town where 
they propose to sell. Such is also the law in Kansas. The 
party applying for a license shall present a petition for the 
same to the proper authorities, signed by a majority of the 
adult citizens, both male and female, thus giving to women 
the right to be heard on the question of the sale of intoxi- 
cating liquors, from the evil results of which, she is so great 
a sufferer. 

Under the Kentucky Statutes, which took effect Decem- 
ber I, 1873, no Court shall grant a license to any person 
to keep a tavern who shall be of bad character, or who 
does not keep an orderly house. He shall also give bond, 
not to suffer any gaming in his house, or on his premises, 
nor suffer any scandalous or disorderly behavior in his 
house. It is also made the duty of the County Attorney 
to oppose the issuing of improper license. Similar statutes 
exist in many other States, respecting the granting of 
licenses. 

On March 2, 1873, the Legislature of Pennsylvania 
passed a local option law on the question of license, 
making it the duty of the inspectors and judges of elec- 
tions to receive tickets, having the words "license" or 
" no license" thereon, which they were required to count 
and make return to the Clerk of the Court duly certified. 
And whenever by the return of such elections, it ap- 
peared that there was a majority against license, it was 
not lawful for any court or board of license to issue any 
license for the sale of spirituous, vinous, malt or other 
intoxicating Hquors, or any admixture thereof, until a 



O LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

majority of the electors of any county should vote in favor 
thereof. 

This local option statute in Pennsylvania was secured at 
the instance of the friends of temperance, the liquor men 
using strenuous efforts to defeat it. It was adopted in for- 
ty-one counties of the State, and its results were more favora- 
ble than its most sanguine friends had dared to hope. Some 
of the jails were left without an inmate during the time this 
law was in operation that gave the people the right to say 
whether it should be sold, and it was only repealed at the 
instance and demand of the liquor interests. Whatever 
sales were made in those counties, while the law was in 
operation, were made in an illicit and clandestine manner. 

Something of the good results of these laws were known 
to the people of Ohio, and aided in making the question 
prominent in the State, and increased the desire for a local 
option law. 

It must be borne in mind, however, that in most of the 
states where local option laws have been agitated and 
adopted, their organic law recognizes license to traffic 
therein. It is different in Ohio, since the adoption of the 
new Constitution in 185 i. The question of license or no 
license cannot be taken into consideration at all, because 
the Constitution declares very explicitly, that '' No license 
to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be granted." 

If the people of Ohio were to have local option on the 
question of the sale or non-sale of liquors — if their voices 
were to be heard on the question, and be potent for good 
or evil, it was not to be on the license issue. Yet a local 
option law of some sort was demanded. 

Accordingly, January 13, 1879, ^ bill was introduced in 
the House of Representatives by the member from Clinton 
County, with the following title : '* To secure to the citizens 
of the State of Ohio, local option in the sale of, or the 
prohibition of the sale of, intoxicating liquors, beer, ale, 
and wine, except for medicinal purposes." This bill after- 






INTRODUCTORY. 7 

ward became known as the QuiNBY Local Option Bill. 

Its author had for many years been familiar with the 
liquor statutes of the State, and had witnessed their ineffi- 
ciency and insufficiency to arrest the tide of intemperance, 
and the many evils following in its train. 
. One hindrance to their enforcement was the difficulty of 
obtaining testimony that was strong enough to warrant a 
conviction, in cases of their violation. Any one seeking 
to enforce the statute, must first go before a mayor or jus- 
tice of the peace and file an affidavit. Upon this being 
done, a warrant may issue, and the marshal or constable, 
as the case may be, may make the arrest and bring the 
defendant into court. The mayor or justice may then 
proceed to inquire into the alleged violation, and it there 
is enough evidence to show that the defendant is probably 
guilty, he maybe recognized to appear at the next term of 
the common pleas court. Unless he enter a plea of 
guilty, he can not be sentenced by the mayor or justice. 

The statutes being criminal, in so far as they look to 
the punishment of the offendor, by a fine or imprison- 
ment, an indictment is necessary before a final trial of a 
defendant. And once on trial for the offense, after the 
conclusion of the testimony, before the jury leaves the 
box, to retire to the jury room, the judge instructs them, 
that if they find the defendant guilty, it must be on evi- 
dence that carries a conviction of guilt to their minds, 
beyond a reasonable doubt. 

It is seldom that the party who drinks the liquor that is 
sold in violation of the Statute, if brought before the court 
to testify, is willing to swear positively that it was * ' intox- 
icating " Hquor. A bystander can not so swear, because 
he did not taste it himself. He could not well know what 
kind of liquor it was. To secure a conviction it must be 
intoxicating liquor. 

Less than positive proof will not do. To prove sales of 
beer or ale is not enough. Of them it is said ''they cheer 



5 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

but do not inebriate. " Sales of either, or both, are insuffi- 
cient to sustain an indictment for selling ''intoxicating 
liquors, to be drank on the premises where sold." 

And even if a witness be produced in court who testifies 
that he saw the defendant sell whisky, and that the same was 
drank upon the premises where sold, it is a chance, if the 
defendant's lawyer does not get him to admit by responses 
to cunningly framed questions, that it might have been 
some other kind of liquor than intoxicating. He will be 
asked. Might it not have been beer ? Might it not have 
been ale ? Did you taste it ? If you did not taste it, how 
do you know it was intoxicating? Did you see this man 
sell it ? Did it make that man drunk ? Was he intoxi- 
cated ? How do you know he was intoxicated ? These 
are some of the questions usually put for the witness to 
answer on cross-examination. 

The prosecutions to final conviction under the statutes 
must be made in the Court of Common Pleas, oftentimes 
after the lapse of six months or a year after the violation 
of the statute complained of. In the crowded condition 
of the court dockets in many counties in the State, appli- 
cation for continuances are readily granted. Should the 
Prosecuting Attorney be unwilling to consent to a continu- 
ance, an affidavit is readily procured, on the part of the 
defendant, setting forth the absence of some material wit- 
ness, without whose testimony the defendant can not 
safely proceed to trial. During all this delay, the witnesses 
on the part of the State, may have gone to parts unknown 
to the Prosecuting Attorney, or, if remaining, the lapse of 
time and a treacherous memory may not enable them to 
testify positively. And thus the prosecution fails. 

Beer and ale have been practically free to be sold at any 
place, since the amendment to Section 199 of the Munici- 
pal Code, on March 29, 1875. Until that amendment 
was made, city and village councils had authority, by 
ordinance, under Subdivision 5 of said Section, ' * To reg- 



INTRODUCTORY. 9 

ulate, restrain and prohibit ale, beer and porter houses, or 
shops, and houses and places of notorious or habitual 
resort for tippling or intemperance." By virtue of this 
power to restrain and prohibit, many of the councils of 
the cities and villages of the State had passed what had be- 
come known as McConnellsville ordinances, prohibiting the 
keeping of within their limits, ale, beer, and porter houses 
or shops, and places of notorious or habitual resort for 
tippling or intemperance. These ordinances prescribed 
heavy penalties for their violation. But by the amend- 
ment they were paralyzed of their power to restrain 
and prohibit, the same sub-division now reading: '* To 
regulate ale, beer and porter houses or shops." With 
this amendment the ordinances fell, all over the htate. 
Until then, there could be some check placed upon 
them ; since, the reins are loosened and saloons have 
been opened and established with impunity, under the 
eyes of the members of councils and within the shadows 
of the palaces of justice. 

With ale and beer on the free list it is much more 
difficult than before, to successfully prosecute for sales of 
intoxicating liquor, contrary to law. Evasions of the law 
are easy. Whisky may be sold over the same counter 
with ale and beer, and under their shield, with compara- 
tive security from detection. Should there be any evi- 
dence tending to establish the guilt of the defendant, a 
doubt in the minds of the jury may be raised by refuting 
it with testim.ony showing that possibly it might have 
been beer only. 

The author of this bill, recognizing the uncertainty 
attending the execution of the present laws, thought much 
on the subject of how to better them. Thousands of 
petitioners were asking for temperance legislation. At 
each session of the Legislature in the Sixty-second Gen- 
eral Assembly there had been many petitions presented. 
It was so in the first session of the Sixty-third, and they 



lO LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

were likely to continue in the second session. Some- 
thing should be done to check the fearful tide of drunken- 
ness and dissipation that was carrying to destruction each 
year thousands of the citizens of the State, filling our alms- 
houses with paupers, and piling up costs 'in criminal cases 
to be paid by the taxpayers of the counties of the State. 
These questions were presented to his mind : 
Why not have the prosecutions for offenses under the 
liquor statutes take place at once, while the testimony 
could be easily obtained and while the memory of wit- 
nesses is fresh ? 

Why have witnesses taken away many miles from home 
to testify, at great inconvenience and expense to them- 
selves ? 

Why have them to attend before the grand jury at all ? 
Why have them await its sitting ? 

Why not have the defendant go to trial in the township 
where he resides ? 

Why make it necessary to have the jury find him guilty 
beyond a reasonable doubt? 

Why not have a verdict against him on a fair preponder- 
ance of evidence ? 

Why make it a criminal case ? 

Why not a civil case, to be tried before a justice of the 
peace and a jury, if demanded ? 

Why not look to the property of the defendant to satisfy 
a verdict for damages against him? 
Why look to his person? 

Why exempt any of his property in, on, or about his 
saloon from execution, on a judgment against him for a 
violation of the statute ? 

Why not take his glasses, his tables, his bottles, his kegs 
and his barrels to satisfy a judgment against him in dam- 
ages, for a violation of the statutes ? 

Why not make the real estate Hable on a judgment 
against him for a violation, where the liquor is sold con- 



THE QUINBY LOCAL OPTION BILL. II 

trary to law, whether owned by him or not, on the princi- 
ple of the Adair law ? 

Why not let the electors of a township vote on the 
question of the sale or non-sale therein of any kind of 
liquors? 

Why not have majorities rule on this question ? 

Why should a saloon keeper sell my neighbor's son 
whisky, or beer, or ale, if my neighbor says not ? 

Why should he sell to the sons of a hundred neighbors, 
if those neighbors say not ? 

Who provided for that son in his infancy and boy- 
hood, and educated him for a life of usefulness ? 

Was it the saloon-keeper or my neighbor ? 

Who will suffer the greater anguish of heart if my 
neighbor's son be ruined by the use of strong drink ? 

Why should my neighbor be deprived of the assistance 
and society of his son, by the acquired habit of tippling ? 

These and many other questions presented themselves 
to the mind of the author, and led to careful reflection as 
to the best and most practical form of additional Temper- 
ance legislation. 

Elected to the Legislature, by a constituency second to 
none other in the State, in intelligence, morality, and tem- 
perance, he felt he had a duty to discharge, in this direc- 
tion, and this* bill was carefully matured and drafted by him. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE QUINBY LOCAL OPTION BILL. 

THE bill was introduced in the House and read the first 
time, on Jan. 15, 1879, ^.nd sent to the printer to 
be printed. It was numbered 619. It afterward came 
back from the printer, was placed upon the Calendar for 
a second reading, and on Friday, January 17, was read a 



12 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

second time and referred to the Committee on Temper- 
ance. The following is the bill : 

HOUSE BILL NO. 619 — BY MR. QUINBY, OF CLINTON COUNTY. 

A BILL 

To secure the citizens of the State of Ohio local option 
in the sale of, or prohibition of the sale of, intoxicating 
Hquors, beer, ale, and wine, except for medicinal pur- 
poses. 

Section i. Be it enacted by the General Asse^nbly of 
Ohio, That it shall be the duty of the trustees of each of 
the several townships of the State of Ohio, upon the pe- 
tition in writing of thirty or more of the electors of any 
township, to them, or the township clerk presented, at 
least thirty days previous to the first Monday of April, of 
any year, asking that a vote of the electors of such town- 
ship may be had upon the question of the sale therein, or 
the prohibition of the sale therein, of intoxicating liquors, 
beer, ale and wine, except for medicinal purposes, to call 
an election of the voters of such township, on the first 
Monday of April next thereafter, at the usual place of 
holding elections therein, for the purpose of submitting to 
the voters of such township the question of the sale of, or 
the prohibition of the sale thereof, in such township, ex- 
cept for medicinal purposes, intoxicating Hquors, beer, ale 
and wine, notice of which shall be given by posting written 
or printed notices thereof in at least ten public places in 
the township, or by publication in some newspaper of gen- 
eral circulation therein, or by both methods. 

Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the judges of the elec- 
tion in such township, on the first Monday in April next 
following the giving of such notice, to receive from the le- 
gally qualified electors of such township, tickets, either 
written or printed, or partly written and partly printed 
thereon, the words **For the sale of intoxicating Hquors, 

beer, ale, and wine, in — township, county, 

Ohio, ( filling the blanks with the name of the township 
and county in which such vote was taken,) or the words 
''Against the sale of intoxicating liquors, beer, ale, and 

wine, except for medicinal purposes, in township 

county, Ohio," (filling the blanks with the name 



THE QUINBY LOCAL OPTION BILL. I3 

of the township, and county in which such vote is taken) 
and to deposit said tickets in a box provided for that pur- 
pose by such judges, as is required by law, in the case of 
other tickets received at other elections held on the first 
Monday of April each year, and the tickets so received 
shall be counted by said judges and the clerk or clerks of 
election of such township, after the closing of the polls, in 
such manner as is now provided by law for the counting of 
the tickets cast at other elections held the first of April each 
year, and announce the result thereof. 

Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of the township clerk of 
such township, within two days thereafter, to enter upon 
the record book of such township the result of such elec- 
tion, giving the whole number of votes, the number of 
votes for the sale of intoxicating liquors, beer, ale and 
wine, in such township, and the number of votes against 
the sale of intoxicating liquors, beer, ale and wine, except 
for medicinal purposes, in such township, and to file the 
poll sheet and tally sheet of such election in his office, to- 
gether with a copy of the notice of such election, and the 
notice in writing requesting the vote to be taken. 

Sec. 4. If a majority of the tickets voted at the elec- 
tion shall be for the sale of intoxicating liquors, beer, ale 
and wine, then it shall be lawful to sell intoxicating liquors, 
beer, ale and wine, in such township, subject to such re- 
strictions, regulations, and penalties as may now exist by 
statute, or may hereafter be provided thereby ; provided, 
that this act shall not be construed to repeal or effect any 
special law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors ; 
but if a majority of the tickets voted at such election shall 
be against the sale of intoxicating liquors, beer, ale and 
wine, except for medicinal purposes, then it shall be un- 
lawful, after the first day of June next thereafter, to sell 
intoxicating liquors, beer, ale and wine, within the limits 
of such township, except on written prescription of a prac- 
tising physician for medicinal purposes. 

Sec. 5. In receiving and counting the votes cast at such 
election, the judges and clerk or clerks of election of such 
township shall be governed by the laws of this State reg- 
ulating township elections ; and the penalties of said elec- 
tion laws are hereby extended to and shall apply in full 
force to the electors voting at such election, and to the 
judges and clerks thereof in attendance upon elections 



14 LOC4L OPTION IN OHIO. • 

held under the provisions of this act ; and any expenses 
incurred by the trustees of such township in giving notice 
of such election, shall be paid out of the township fund of 
such township, on their order. 

Sec. 6. And in any township where the majority of the 
votes so cast at such election are against the sale therein of 
intoxicating liquors, beer, ale and wine, except for medici- 
nal purposes, if any person or persons shall, after the first 
day of June next succeeding the taking of such vote, eith- 
er by himself or herself, or by or in the name of any part- 
nership or firm, or company, or by agent, or in any other 
manner, in any public place, or any place of public 
resort, or in any saloon, eating-house, bazaar, room, 
restaurant, tavern, hotel, or inn, keep for sale, or ex- 
pose to or for sale, or keep for the purpose of giv- 
ing away, or shall sell or give away any intoxicating 
liquors, beer, ale and wine, such person shall be liable in 
the sum of fifty dollars, to be recovered as liquidated dam- 
ages, for every day after the first day of June next suc- 
ceeding the day of taking such vote, that he, she, or they 
may keep for sale, or expose for sale, or keep for the pur- 
pose of giving away, any intoxicating liquors, beer, ale, or 
wine, in a civil action, to be brought in the name of such 
township against such persons ; provided, however, that 
this act shall not apply to intoxicating liquors, beer, ale, 
or wines sold at drug stores on the prescription of a prac- 
ticing physician for medicinal purposes. 

Sec. 7. And it shall be the duty of the prosecuting at- 
torney of the county in which said township is situated, at 
the request of the township trustees, or any two of them, 
or upon the written request of any twenty electors thereof, 
or upon his own information, to bring civil suit for dam- 
ages, either before a justice of the peace of such township, 
or in the court of common pleas of such county in which 
such township is situated, against such persons, and ten 
per cent, of all damages so recovered shall be paid the 
prosecuting attorney of such county, and ninety per cent, 
of all damages so recovered, when collected, shall be paid 
by the clerk of the court in which the same is collected, or 
by the justice of the peace before whom suit is brought and 
judgment taken, into the school fund of the township 
wherein suck violation of the statute was made, to be 
used in the support of the sub-district schools of said town- 



THE QUINBY LOCAL OPTION BILL. 1 5 

ship ; and there may be as many suits brought against any 
such person or persons as there are daily violations of this 
act. 

Sec. 8. For all damages and costs, assessed against any 
person or persons, in consequence of the violation of this 
act, the real estate and personal property of such person 
or persons, of every kind, without any exception, or with- 
out any exemption whatever, shall be liable for the pay- 
ment thereof; and such damages with costs of suit shall be a 
lien on such real estate until paid ; and in case any person 
or persons shall rent or lease to another, or others, any 
building or premises to be used or occupied, in whole or in 
part, for the sale of intoxicating liquors, beer, ale, or wine, 
or shall permit the same to be so used or occupied in 
whole or in part, in any township after such vote is taken, 
and where a majority of the votes so cast are against the 
sale of intoxicating liquors, beer, and ale therein, such 
buildings or premises so leased, used or occupied, shall 
be held liable for and may be sold to pay all damages and 
costs assessed against any person or persons, occupying 
such building or premises, and proceedings may be had 
to subject the same to the payment of any such damages 
and costs assessed or judgment recovered, which remained 
unpaid, or any part thereof, either before or after execu- 
tion shall issue against the property of the person or per- 
sons against whom such damages and costs or judgment 
shall have been adjudged or assessed ; and when execu- 
tion shall issue against the property so leased or rented, 
the officer shall proceed to satisfy said execution out of 
the building or premises so leased or occupied as afore- 
said; and in case such building or premises belongs to a 
minor, insane person, or idiot, the guardian of such mi- 
nor, insane person or idiot, who has control of such build- 
ing or premises, shall be liable and acount to his or her 
ward for all damages on account of such use and occupa- 
tion of such building or premises ; and all contracts where- 
by any building shall be rented or leased, and the same 
shall be used or occupied, in whole or in part for the sale 
of intoxicating liquors, beer, ale, or wine, shall be void ; 
and any judgment taken, before any justice of the peace, 
for damages and costs under this act may be certified by 
transcript to the court of common pleas of such county, 



l6 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

and become a lien on real estate, as in other cases by law 
provided. 

Sec 9. This act shall take effect and be in force after 
its pasage. 

The committee on Temperance consisted of seven mem- 
bers, as follows : 

S. S. Wolf, of Hocking ; W. D. Tyler, of Wyandot ; 
John Hardy, of Coshocton ; B. F. Lovelace, of Hamilton ; 
Harvey Kellogg, of Lucas ; Robert Mackey, of Mahoning ; 
and Thomas S. Luccock, of Guernsey. 

The seven members of the committee, were divided, 
politically, as follows: Messrs. Wolf, Tyler, Hardy and 
Lovelace were Democrats. Messrs. Kellogg and Mackey, 
Nationals, and Mr. Luccock a Republican. Of the seven 
there were but two, that favored temperance legislation. 
Those two were Messrs. Kellogg and Luccock. ** 



CHAPTER HL 

WHAT THE NEWSPAPERS HAD TO SAY OF IT. 

IMMEDIATELY following the introduction of the bill, 
many newspapers of the State gave it notice. Some of 
them published the bill entire, and others gave a full syn- 
opsis of it. The provisions of the bill were commended, 
generally, there being but few adverse, or unfriendly crit- 
icisms of it. 

In this chapter is given a few extracts from editorials 
and articles by newspaper correspondents, written and 
published before the bill was put upon its passage, and 
while in possession of the Temperance committee. 

EDITORIAL FROM THE ATHENS MESSENGER, JAN. 1 6. 

*'The local option bill just introduced in the Legislature 
should meet with the approval of all good citizens." 



WHAT THE NEWSPAPERS HAD TO SAY OF IT. 1/ 

EDITORIAL FROM THE DAILY GAZETTE, STEUBENVILLE, OHIO. 

" The present session of the Legislature is noticeable 
for the number of petitions presented to it calling for 
temperance legislation. These petitions come from al- 
most every part of the state, indicating that there is an or- 
ganized effort on the part of the temperance people to in- 
stitute reform in our laws pertaining to the sale of liquor. 
These petitions have called forth a number of bills making 
decided changes in the liquor laws, the most important of 
which is, probably, the Local Option bill of Mr. Quinby, 
Republican member of the House from Clinton county." 

A communication was published in the Cincinnati Ga- 
zette, written from Pine Grove Furnace, O., under the 
date of Jan. 20, in which the writer says : '* Observing, in 
the Gazette this week, that a local option bill has been in- 
troduced into the House at Columbus, I desire to say 
that I am entirely in favor of this law, as it refers to town- 
ships. We have in our locality one saloon largely patro- 
nized, yet three-fourths of those very men who patronize 
the drinking-shop will favor the removal of liquor from the 
township, who would not favor its removal from the coun- 
ty. Having taken the pains to inquire of a number of 
those who Hke to tipple, they will without exception, fa- 
vor a local option township law." 

The Republican- Democrat, of Portage county, had a long 
editorial on the bill, a portion of which is as follows : '* In 
another place in this impression of the Republican- Demo- 
crat is placed for consideration of the people of Portage 
county the Local Option bill, now pending before the 
Ohio Legislature. The bill seems to be carefully drawn 
and to fairly and well cover the ground contemplated by 
local option, and does not disturb or annul any existing 
legislation in regard to the sale of liquors. The friends of 
temperance and of humanity have very liberally petitioned 
the Legislature for the passage of a law of this kind. The 
bill has been introduced, and there is a reasonable proba- 
bility of its passage. All things considered, it seems to be 



1 8 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

wise to afford the people this opportunity to discriminate 
against the sale of intoxicants as beverages. " >i« ^ * 
• ' Local option is the opportunity for our additional 
safeguard against the evils of the liquor traffic." >K * * 
**The earnestness with which local option has been asked 
for is a step in the right direction. The people should 
have it. They should use it to curb and control the liquor 
traffic — and to save the souls and abilities of men from the 
curse of the dram shop. " 

The National Temperance Standard had the following 
among other words to say of it in its issue of Feb. 3 : 
"We have been taught by past experience that prohibi- 
tion, as understood by the Prohibition party, is at present 
impracticable in this State, and our work now, it seems 
to us, is not to fight for the impracticable, but rather 
for that prohibition which is practical under a Local Option 
law, and which would tend by its good effects on the com- 
munity to lead and educate our people, and so prepare 
them to adopt the higher platform of total legal prohibition 
of the liquor traffic in the State ; and in this work we shall 
receive the hearty support of every branch of the Christian 
Church. The opportunity is now given to obtain a 
temperance law which could and would be enforced." 

The Cleveland Leader, of Feb. 4, in an editorial headed, 
**The Standard up for Local Option," alluding to the 
above article quoted from The Temperance Standard, had 
the following: — "A very uncommon sort of sense for the 
reformers usually represented by such an organ, is man- 
ifested by the National Temperance Standard of yesterday's 
issue, in the uplifting of its banner in behalf of the Local 
Option bill now pending before the Legislature. We read 
with pleasant surprise the following paragraph." The 
Leader then quotes the above paragraph from the National 
Temperance Standard, and continues its editorial as follows : 

* ' In the judgment, we think of a vast majority of well- 
wishers of the temperance reforms, and of an increasing 



{ 



WHAT THE NEWSPAPERS HAD TO SAY OF IT. 1 9 

number of those who are active in the work, such a meas- 
ure offers the only hope of sure and effective reHef by the 
law in any part of a State except, perhaps, in Maine." 

** The secrets of success in a local option law are that it 
brings the questions involved home, in the phrase of Ba- 
con ' to men's business and bosoms '; that it relegates to 
each community, so large as a township, independent legis- 
lation upon matters which vitally affect its people ; 
the prehminary agitation, of the measure, calls the atten- 
tion of every voter and other person above the age of in- 
fancy, to the tremendous ills of intemperance ; and that, 
whatever may be the decision at the polls, a majority of 
the voters are committed to the enforcement of the law de- 
creed. The absence of the consideration last named has 
been the chief weakness of prohibitory law. What was 
everybody's business generally proved to be nobody's. 
For these reasons, and others equally cogent, we trust that 
House bill No. 619 may pass the present Legislature." 

The Barnesville Enterprise, in its issue of Feb. 6, closed a 
long editorial on the bill thus : ' ' We have no hesitation 
in saying that the friends of temperance should combine 
in favor of the passage of this law. It may not be just 
what every one wants ; but it is based upon the will of the 
people; and it will eventually result in the prohibition of 
the Hquor traffic in one half of the, townships of Ohio. 
The most radical prohibitionist should favor this law on 
the ground that * half a loaf is better than no bread. ' If 
this act is made a law, at least seven hundred townships, 
or one half the State, will adopt a prohibitory law. It of 
course leaves the large cities at the mercy of the Hquor 
sellers, but on the other hand, it rescues the rural town- 
ships and the small towns of the State from the evils of 
the traffic. With this bill a law, perhaps every township 
in Belmont county, except one or two, would be protect- 
ed from the evils of intoxicating drink." 

* * It is hoped that the temperance people of all shades 
of opinion will unite in favor of this bill, which is the best, 
and we might almost say, the only temperance legislation 



20 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

that will be offered. Do not refuse a part because you can 
not get all. Let us get prohibition around our own fire- 
sides and families if we can, and hope that the entire State 
may eventually do likewise. This is the opportunity for 
the people of this region to secure prohibition, and we 
hope that every temperance man and woman will become 
an earnest, active advocate of the measure. We have had 
oceans of talk — let us for once be practicable, and throttle 
intemperance wherever we can. Let us all work for the 
passage of the Local Option bill." 

The Highland County News^ edited by J. L. Boardman, 
had the following to say of it editorially : '* We pubHsh 
this week the * Local Option ' bill introduced in the Legis- 
lature by Mr. Quinby, of Clinton county, and hope it will 
be carefully read by every temperance man in this coun- 
ty. If this bill becomes a law, in time to be acted on by 
voters, at the coming April election, there is no doubt 
that every saloon in Hillsboro and Highland county can 
l3e closed and kept closed before the first of July next. 
And the same result can be brought about in five-sixths of 
the counties of the State. All that is needed is prompt 
and vigorous action in circulating petitions in favor of the 
law, and forwarding them to the Legislature without de- 
lay. There ought to be a million signers to these peti- 
tions within the next thirty days. The Legislature dare 
not refuse to pass a law, simply giving the people of each 
township the right to vote whether liquor shall be sold or 
not within the township limits. Let every Temperance 
man and woman in this county sign and circulate the pe- 
titions, and in due time they will see the good result of 
their labors." 

The Columbus correspondent of the Cincinnati Gazette, 
writing under the date of Feb. 5 to that paper, said: **The 
monotony of the presentation of unimportant petitions and 
remonstrances was broken this morning by the offering bf 
a large number of temperance petitions, most all of which 



WHAT THE NEWSPAPERS HAD TO SAY OF IT. 21 

were worded so as to favor directly the passage of the 
Quinby local option bill. On these were a total of 1,156 
signatures, many of which represented churches of con- 
siderable membership, and properly the sentiment of the 
entire membership, although the names of but voters alone 
were signed. Coming in such volume, the petitions attract- 
ed much more attention than temperance petitions have at- 
tracted heretofore, and their influence goes to show the 
value of a united action in support of this cause urged 
sometime ago in these columns." 

The Rev J. G. Tunison, in a communication in the 
Cincinnati Gazette o{ Feb. 10, endorsed the bill very strong- 
ly. We give the letter in full as it appeared in that paper : 

Cincinnati, Feb. 10, 1879. 
To the Editor of the Cincinnati Gazette : 

This is a new phase in the temperance work. But is it 
not commendable? May not the churches of the State 
of Ohio, of the whole country State by State, bring a mor- 
al influence to bear upon the lawmaking power that will be 
felt for good in reference to the liquor traffic ? 

The temperance question is both moral and religious in 
its character. No form of sin is more widely destructive 
to the souls*and bodies of men, or to the well being and 
doing of families, than drunkenness. No form of sin is a 
more formidable barrier to the success of the Church in 
saving men than intemperance in drinks that make drunk. 
The traffic in such drinks is accompanied by and associated 
with almost every other form of sin. Hence to strike at 
intemperance and the cause thereof is to strike the top 
root of the tree that produces, as its legitimate fruit, nearly 
all the gross vices that curse society and hinder the salva- 
tion of multitudes. Hence if the Church of the present 
would desire to echo the voice of Him who preached in 
the wilderness, " Behold how the ax is laid (or. aimed) at 
the root of the tree ; every tree that bringeth not forth 
good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. " Here is cer- 
tainly the root of a very evil tree. Let the Church strike 
the root. The question comes, How to do it? The evil 
is intrenched under the protection of law. The Constitu- 



22 L0C4L OPTION IN OHIO. 

tion of Ohio says : ' ' there shall be no license for the sale 
of intoxicating drinks." The result is unlicensed and un- 
limited trade. The statutes that are in any wise prohibit- 
ory in pretension prove practically to be of no consequence 
in protective power to society. Generally in the hands of 
pettifoggers and the average juries, these statutory provi- 
sions inure to the protection of those who are engaged in 
the traffic. The cost of enforcement of these prohibitory 
provisions is so much beyond the benefits resulting, that 
the law abiding, order loving, in any locality soon tire of 
conflict. Hence we need legislation to prevent or forbid 
the traffic in such terms as to put the saddle upon the oth- 
er horse. Society has worn the saddle, and the men, 
booted and spurred, have ridden about long enough. The 
present local option bill (H. B. 619) is a movement in the 
right direction. 

It embodies the true democratic principle of allowing 
the majority of the people in any township in the State 
to control as to the existence or tolerance of these dens of 
sin in the voting precinct. 

This bill is the result, in a measure, of the agitation of 
the subject of the duty of the religious element of the 
country, as represented in the various church organiza- 
tions, to come to the front, and, as churches, ask for re- 
lief through legislation. 

The aim is to separate the question from mere political 
engineering. These petitioners come as Christians, as 
lovers of God and humanity, and ask that the matter be 
thus submitted, and thus saddle the traffic, with such pen- 
alty as to prevent its existence against the legally express- 
ed will of the majority of the people. 

Let the churches of every name in the State 7iow just 
follow the example of those who have reported, showing 
that this is no party poHtical job, but that the great con- 
servative religious element is moving for redress of griev- 
ances in this purely constitutional way, and the present 
Legislature will see that it is wise to pass H. B. 619, and 
let it become the law of the State. At least one-half of 
the townships in the State will at once rid their population 
of the traffic. * ^ ^ >i< >ii ^ * 

The following editorial notice from T/ie Ashtabula Senti- 
nel^ shows the favor with which the bill was received there. 



WHAT THE NEWSPAPERS HAD TO SAY OF IT. 23 

**The petition for a Local Option law, which is being cir- 
culated in this village is being, we might say, uniformly 
signed. The list thus far embraces most of the business 
and professional men in this place, and it has only com- 
menced on its rounds." 

The Columbus correspondent of the Cincinnati Times, 
writing under date of February 26, had the following to 
say: 

Columbus, O., February 26. 

The people of Ohio, Christian and Pagan, seem to be 
unusually alert this year upon the temperance question. 
Happily for the friends of temperance this activity does 
not run to the impracticable question of absolute prohibi- 
tion, but rather to the more practicable system of local op- 
tion. Ever since the repeal of the law which acquired con- 
siderable fame by a local application at McConnelsville, 
which authorized village councils to regulate and restrain 
the evils resulting from the sale of intoxicating liquors, 
there has been more or less talk of this matter of local op- 
tion, and during the past year this interest has crystalized 
and taken form in the shape of petitions demanding a law 
of this character. 

Early in the session Mr. Quinby, of Clinton, introduced 
a bill to secure to the people local option in the sale of in- 
toxicating liquors, beer, wine and ale, except for medicin- 
al purposes. This bill has been brought into more promi- 
nence than any bill now before the Legislature, or that has 
been introduced for some years. 

Each morning these paper prayers come in showers — 
for instance, this morning thirty-six petitions were present- 
ed, signed by three thousand seven hundred persons, res- 
idents of twenty-three different counties. 

The point of these petitions is that they are signed by 
Republicans, Democrats, Christians and infidel, without 
regard to party or church affiliation. 

The fact that the Prohibition State Convention so far 
forgot its intolerance as to ask for the passage of this bill 
is not without its significance. A search through the vast 
mass of these petitions now in the hands of the Temper- 
ance Committee show that the people of Highland, Clin- 
ton, Columbiana, Huron, Ashtabula, Belmont and Stark 



24 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

are the most actively engaged in securing this legislation ; 
and, further, that the signers live largely in small towns, 
or on farms, and that few residents of large cities seem to 
have troubled themselves about the matter. 

The demand for copies of the bill has been almost un- 
precedented, and the first edition was exhausted in a few 
days. Five hundred copies of the bill were then printed, 
but these were at once called for. Mr. Quinby then se- 
cured the printing of an additional two hundred copies, 
and these have nearly all been sent out. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE PEOPLE HEARD FROM. 

ALTHOUGH no effort had been made* by the author of 
the bill to secure petitions asking for its passage, it 
was but a short time before they began pouring in from 
various localities, praying for its enactment. These were 
introduced from time to time by the gentlemen repre- 
senting the respective counties from which they came. 

But about two weeks had elapsed, however, after its 
introduction, until requests by letter, and otherwise, began 
coming to the author, and also to many of the members, 
for copies of the bill, and printed headings for petitions. 
He then procured the printing of several hundred headings 
for petitions, which were distributed among the members 
when requested, and sent out from time to time as de- 
manded of him. The following is the form of petition : 

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the State 
of Ohio : 

We, the undersigned, legal voters, of County, 

Ohio, respectfully ask of you the passage of H, B. No. 
619, '*To secure to the citizens of the State of Ohio, 
LOCAL OPTION in the sale of, or prohibition of the sale 
of intoxicating hquors, beer, ale, and wine, except for 



THE PEOPLE HEARD FROM. 25 

medicinal purposes, on the vote of the electors of the dif- 
ferent townships of the State." 

This form of petition was also copied largely by news- 
papers favoring temperance legislation, and in many chan- 
nels found its way among the people. Like a resistless 
tide, they soon began flowing in, signed by fifties and 
hundreds. In some instances, several petitions would be 
placed in circulation in a township, signed by the people, 
then collected together and united into one. 

It was not an unusual occurrence to see a member with 
a petition in his possession, ready for introduction, many 
feet in length. The petition introduced by Mr. Dawson, 
of Highland county, embraced many in one, and had it 
been extended, would perhaps have been forty yards in 
length. The same might be said of the petition introduc- 
ed by Mr. Oglevee, from Clarke county, the day the bill 
was under discussion. So great was the demand for the 
bill, that the first edition was exhausted in a few days. A 
second edition of five hundred copies was ordered printed 
by the Clerk of the House, at the request of the author. 
It was but a short time until these, also, were all gone, 
and then the author, to supply the demand that was still 
increasing, got a resolution through the House, author- 
izing the printing of the third edition. These were soon 
all gone. Probably never before in the history of the 
State, was the demand for a bill so universal. Even the 
liquor dealers became interested, and sent in orders for the 
bill. One of the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House sent off 
thirty at one time to Cleveland, to fill an order from there 
from the liquor dealers and saloon men. All classes of 
people seemed interested. Learned theologians, college 
professors, ministers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, merchants, 
farmers and laborers, all were ready and willing to sign 
petitions. Those that abstained entirely from the use of 
liquors, as well as those that used them, alike put down 
their names. A noted saloon-keeper in one of the county- 



26 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

seats in the State where a large number of signatures to 
petitions were taken, put down his name. When asked 
why he was wilHng to sign, he repHed that a vote by the 
people on the question was just and fair, and that if the 
people of the village where he lived voted against the sale, 
he would close his saloon at once, and quietly acquiesce in 
their decision. He said he believed in the right of the 
majority to rule, as well on this question, as any other. 



CHAPTER V. 

PETITIONS PRESENTED FOR THE BILL. 

THE following tabular statement shows the number of 
petitions, with number of signatures to each, praying 
for the passage of a local option bill, forty thousand of 
which were worded, so as to directly allude to, and favor 
the passage of H. B. 619, by Mr. Quinby : 



NAME OP COUNTY. 

Adams . . . 

Allen . . . 

Ashland . . 

Ashtabula . 

Athens . . 

Belmont . . 

Butler . . . 

Brown . . . 
Carroll . . 

Champaign . 

Clarke . . . 

Clermont . . 

CHnton . . 

Columbiana . 

Coshocton . 

Crawford . . 



Number 


Number 


.of 


of 

Rijornatiirps 


6 


662 


4 


358 


2 


719 


15 


1910 


6 


598 


8 


1 102 


4 


522 


3 


754 


6 


299 


3 


759 


7 


4952 


7 


480 


19 


143 1 


8 


812 


4 


608 


I 


606 



PETITIONS PRESENTED FOR THE BILL. 

Petitions Presented — Continued. 



27 



NAME OF COUNT!, 

Darke . . . 

Delaware . . 

Erie . . . . 

Fayette . . 

Franklin . . 

Fulton . . . 

Gallia . . . 

Geauga . . 

Greene . . . 

Guernsey . . 

Harrison . . 

Highland . . 

Huron . . . 

Jackson . . 

Jefferson . . 

Knox . . . 

Lake . . . 

Lawrence . . 

Licking . . . 
Logan . 

Lorain . ^. . 

Lucas . . . 

Madison . . 

Marion . . . 

Medina . . . 

Meigs . . . 

Miami . . . 

Monroe . . . 
Montgomery 

Morgan . . 

Morrow . . 

Muskingum . 

Noble . . . 

Ottawa . . . 

Perry . . . 

Pickaway . . 

Portage . . . 

Preble , . . 

Richland . . 



Number 


Number 


of 


of 


Petitions. 


Signatures 


2 


362 


4 


279 


I 


230 


3 


290 


2 


623 


2 


122 


2 


147 


2 


180 


5 


776 


6 


657 


7 


II33 


4 


4464 


9 


II2I 


5 


536 


I 


276 


6 


728 


2 


314 


2 


166 


5 


I281 


I 


45 


10 


1212 


2 


236 


7 


545 


9 


559 


4 


324 


I 


III 


3 


385 


2 


■ 100 


3 


702 


14 


1136 


5 


347 


I 


42 


2 


795 


3 


223 


5 


405 


I 


35 


2 


228 


6 


515 


I 


108 



28 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

Petitions Presented — Continued. 

Number Number 

NAME OF COUNTY. of of 

Petitions. Signatures. 

Shelby 6 745 

Stark. 4 524 

Summit 7 475 

Trumbull . . 7 503 

Tuscarawas . i 337 

Union 5 592 

Warren 16 1340 

Washington 10 940 

Williams 3 480 



Totals 313 44,265 



In addition to these, there were presented during the 
session, ninety-four other petitions signed by 11,787 per- 
sons, asking for such appropriate legislation as would protect 
them from the evils resulting in the manufacture and sale 
of intoxicating liquors, or for the submission of a constitu- 
tional amendment to the people, prohibiting the manufac- 
ture and sale of intoxicating liquors, or other forms of 
temperance legislation, all of which were referred to the 
committee on Temperance. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE BILL ENDORSED AT PUBLIC MEETINGS, 

SO greatly were the people interested in the success of 
the measure, that during its pendency in the Legisla- 
ture, while in the possession of the Temperance Committee, 
public meetings were held at various places in the State, 
warmly endorsing it. Resolutions favoring its passage 
were adopted and forwarded to, the Representatives of the 



THE BILL ENDORSED AT PUBLIC MEETINGS. 2g 

counties wherein such demonstrations of approval were 
manifested. 

Soon after its introduction, a pubHc meeting was held at 
the Christian Church, in Wilmington, the county seat of 
Clinton county, the place of residence of the author of the 
bill, for the purpose of considering its provisions and tak- 
ing action in reference to it. 

At this meeting there was a general discussion of its le- 
gal bearings, and its constitutionality, participated in by 
I. B. Allen, Esq., F. G. Slone, Esq., Judge A. W. Doan, 
James M. Vernon, editor of the Wilmington Journal^ 
Rev. B. Y. Siegfred, Capt. D. A. Lamb, Col. J. C. 
Moon, Judge J. H. West. J. G. Outcalt, and others of 
the prominent citizens of the village. 

Near the close of the meeting the following resolutions 
were offered by Mr. Vernon, which were unanimously 
adopted : 

*' Whereas, Our Representative, Hon. I. W. Quinby, 
has offered a bill to the House of Representatives of the 
Ohio Legislature providing for local option in this State, 
and 

*' Whereas, We recognize the necessity of the passage 
of a law to bring about the suppression of the liquor traf- 
fic, therefore, 

* ' Resolved, That we heartily endorse the bill now pend- 
ing before the Legislature of our State. 

* ' Resolved, That we pledge to our Representative our 
united support and co-operation in his efforts to secure the 
passage of the bill in question. 

'* Resolved, That we urge him to use all honorable 
means to a push this matter to a successful issue, and to 
show him that we are in earnest upon the subject, we 
hereby pledge ourselves to make an earnest effort to ob- 
tain a long list of signatures to a petition advocating tem- 
perance legislation." 

A committee of five was appointed to procure petitions 
for signers. 

At about the same time, at a regular Murphy Temper- 
ance meeting held one Sunday afternoon at Hillsborough, 



30 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

which was largely attended, some very important action 
was taken in favor of the bill. 

Judge Thompson addressed the meeting at length, ex- 
plained the objects and provisions of it, and expressed his 
conviction that it was the best and most practical Tem- 
perance measure yet presented to the people of Ohio. 
A form of petition was adopted, and an Executive Com- 
mittee appointed to see to their immediate circulation in 
town and country, as follows : James W. Doggett, A. W. 
Thornburg, J. C. Rittenhouse, G. R. Tucker, Josiah 
Stevenson, J. L. Boardman, J. R. Marshall, Mrs. J. W. 
Weatherby, Mrs. M. R, Orr, Mrs. R. R; Waddell, Mrs. 
W. J. McSurely, Mrs. J. K. Dickering and Mrs. C. C. 
Sams. On the following day the Executive Committee 
held a meeting and appointed sub-committees, to aid in 
circulating petitions. These sub-committees were appoint- 
ed for both town and country, and to their effort is to be at- 
tributed, largely, the great success in obtaining signatures 
in that county, to petitions. Afterward, there were forty- 
five hundred petitioners' names sent up to the Legislature 
for the bill, from this county of Highland alone. 

Afterward there was an immense citizen's temperance 
meeting held at Pike's Opera House in Cincinnati, direct- 
ly favoring Local Option, which was addressed by Mr. 
Charles W. Rowland, one of Cincinnati's good men, Dr. J. 
M. Waldron, the noted Methodist Divine, and others. The 
speeches made, and report of the meeting, are too lengthy 
to insert here. 

On the nth of Feb. the Quarterly Convention of the 
W. C. T. U. of Medina county, was held at the M. E. 
Church at York, in that county. A discussion was had 
on the bill, then pending in the Legislature, and the fol- 
lowing resolutions adopted : 

''Resolved, That the Local Option Bill of the Hon. I. 
W. Quinby, of Clinton county, is a measure in the right 
direction, and if passed by our present Legislature, and 



THE BILL ENDORSED AT PUBLIC MEETINGS. 3 1 

carried out by the people, will curtail the acknowledged 
great evils of intemperance. 

* ' Resolved, That this body ask our Representative, 
Hon. E. S. Perkins, to use his influence and vote, for its 
passage. 

' ' Resolved, That a copy of this preamble and resolutions 
be forwarded to our representative at Columbus." 

At a meeting of the W. C. T. U. of Clinton County 
held at Sabina, in the latter part of February, the follow- 
ing resolutions were reported and adopted : 

''Whereas, We recognize complete prohibition of the 
liquor traffic, as the finality of our aims, yet believing that 
we must have ' First the blade, then the ear, after that the 
full corn in the ear. ' 

'' Resolved, That we most warmly endorse House Bill 
No. 619, now pending before the Legislature, which de- 
mands Local Option, and that we extend to Representa- 
tive Quinby, our greetings and thanks for his courageous 
and zealous interest in the cause of Temperance, as man- 
ifested by the introduction of said bill ; and that we pledge 
ourselves to earnest and immediate efforts to promote its 
passage." 

A copy of these resolutions was delivered to the author 
of the bill, 'at Columbus, by Mrs. Mary A, Woodbridge, 
General Secretary of the Ohio W. C. T. U., signed by Mrs. 
Rhoda C. Worthington, Pres. of the Clinton County So- 
ciety, Alice M. Terrell, Sec'y, and sixty-three other ladies 
of the county. Among the names were those of Caroline 
E. Harlan, Abigail J. Hadley, Alzina W. Barlow, Ellen 
P. Browning, Lamson Kibbey, Martha G. Doan, Levina 
Rhonemus, Caroline Nordyke, and others, whose great de- 
votion to the temperance cause and the relief of suffering 
humanity, has made them well known in Southern Ohio. 

From many other quarters came resolutions of endorse- 
ment, but space forbids further mention. 



32 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

CHAPTER VII. 

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE BILL. 

IT was the constant desire of the author of the bill, dur- 
ing the months he had been reflecting upon the sub- 
ject, that he might be enabled to draft it in such a manner, 
that it would be free from any constitutional objection, af- 
ter it became a law, and at the same time have it practical 
and effective in its enforcement. 

It is well known that the strength of any statute lies in 
its power of vindicating itself. He wished to make its 
justification complete, and to avoid the necessity in its 
enforcement, of taking a fortuitous course through a grand 
jury, as a prosecutor is compelled to do under existing 
statutes, with postponed and unsatisfactory results. 

As all rights of a defendant under a criminal statute, are 
most carefully guarded, and the statute under which the 
prosecution proceeds, strictly construed, he thought to 
make redress by a civil action in damages, rather than 
criminal, and look to the property of the defendant for the 
vindication of the majesty of the law, rather than to the 
person. 

Under a civil statute, a justice of the peace has original 
jurisdiction in all sums up to one hundred dollars. His 
jurisdiction is final, unless an appeal be taken. Either 
prarty in a civil action, before him, may demand a jury. 
If dissatisfied with the decision of the justice or the verdict of 
the jury, either party desiring, can take an appeal, only 
by giving an undertaking of sufficient magnitude, to amply 
satisfy a judgment against him in the court above, togeth- 
er with accruing costs. 

Under a criminal statute a justice of the peace has no 
original, final jurisdiction. He can sentence no one, ex- 
cept on a plea of guilty being entered. Redress for of- 
fenses against the peace and dignity of the State, must be 



CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE BILL. 33 

sought through the intervention of a grand jury. Com- 
plaints may be made before him, by the filing of an af- 
fidavit, and he may issue a warrant against the party com- 
plained of, and deliver it to a constable, and the officer may 
bring the party into the magistrate's court. But he can 
not convict him. He may only inquire into the matter, 
and if in his estimation an offense heen committed he may 
recognize the offender to appear at the next term of court 
of common pleas of the county wherein he resides, to 
answer in case any bill is found against him by the grand 
jury. 

Under a criminal statute there is no such thing as an 
appeal. Appeals will not lie form one court to another. 

Even in prosecutions for violation of village ordinances 
appeals will not lie, if the prosecution be commenced by 
the filing of an affidavit and the issuing of a warrant. 

This was expressly decided at the June term of the Com- 
mon Pleas Court in Clinton county, in 1874, by Judge J. 
M. Smith, in the case of the village of Blanchester against 
James Farquhar, wherein Messrs Quinby & Swain were 
attorneys fpr the village, and C. P. Baldwin, attorney for 
the defendant. In this case an affidavit was filed, charg- 
ing that the defendant had been guilty of violating an ordi- 
nance of the village of Blanchester, prohibiting drunkenness. 
A warant was issued, the defendant arrested, tried and found 
guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of five dollars and costs, 
and to stand committed until the fine and costs were paid. 
Notice of appeal was given, bond put in, and transcript 
filed. 

A motion was filed to dismiss the appeal, on the ground 
that the case was not appealable. The court rendered a 
lengthy decision, dismissing the appeal, from which the 
following extract is' taken : 

''Now it is perfectly clear that there is no appeal from 
the judgment of a Justice of the Peace in a criminal case, 
and as appeals may be taken from the judgment of a 

5 



34 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

Mayor only, it is well to enquire what kind of cases these 
are. In the first place, I think the Legislature has dealt 
with them as if they were criminal cases. They have pro- 
vided for the impaneling of juries of twelve men to try per- 
sons charged with the infractions of the ordinances. 

*' The laws now in force give to all villages the right to 
provide for juries, and when the criminal form of trial is 
adopted, defendants have the right to demand a trial be- 
fore such a tribunal." 

The court made the distinction herein, between appeala- 
ble cases and those not appealable, and based its conclu- 
sions on the fact that the village ordinances provided for a 
constitutional jury of twelve men, whereas, there is no 
provision by law for a jury of twelve men before a justice. 

But a question of graver consideration suggested itself 
in this connection. Would a criminal statute, a statute 
that had to be enforced by the filing of an affidavit, and 
the issuing of a warrant against the body of the defendant 
be held constitutional when left optionary with the major- 
ity of the people of a township, by a vote to be taken, 
whether or not it be called into operation? In other words, 
can a criminal statute be in force in one part of the state 
and not another? 

That a civil statute can be so called into operation, there 
are many precedents. Much of what is done by the com- 
missioners of a county in the way of levying taxes, build- 
ing bridges and the like, depends upon an optional power 
that they may exercise or not. So with the building of 
free pikes on petition of a majority living within certain 
limits, and the assessments of taxes for the purpose. So 
with establishing ditches, drains and watercourses. 

The week following the introduction of the bill in the 
Legislature, the Fayette County Herald, published by 
Hon. William Milikan, in a lengthy editorial, took up the 
constitutional question, and discussed it. He therein ex- 
pressed grave doubts as to its constitutionality, and quo- 
ted Section 26, Article 2 of the Constitution in support 



CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE BILL. 35 

thereof. Although friendly to temperance legislation, he 
argued that under our system of government, the people 
have delegated the power to make their laws to their Rep- 
resentatives ; and that no subsequent vote of the people 
could change them. 

The author in reply thereto, wrote a short article on the 
constitutionality of the bill in which he took up and dis- 
cussed the section of the Constitution cited by the Herald^ 
and also Sec. i8, Schedule of the Constitution, relating to 
the question of license. This communication was pub- 
lished in the Herald, Feb, 6, with the following editorial 
notice : 

*'We call the special attention of our readers to the 
communication of Hon. I. W, Quinby, on the interest- 
ing subject of local option, which will be found on the first 
page of to-day's Herald. This subject is now exciting a 
good deal of interest in the State. If anything can be 
done to check the giant evil of intemperance, it ought to 
be done, and our law-makers will fail to have discharged 
their duties to the people and the State, if they fail to use 
all the means in their official positions to check — if not to 
prohibit etitirely — this terrible evil. Let the people say, 
through the ballot-box, whether they desire, in their sev- 
eral localities, to throttle the monster vice of this traffic in 
intoxicating liquors — including the whole family of intox- 
icants. Certainly, every citizen who believes in the Ameri- 
can principle, that * the majority shall rule, ' cannot object to 
carrying out that principle in the liquor traffic as well as 
in any other evil that casts its blight upon our State and 
Nation. It is a Republican principle, and a Democratic 
principle, recognized and approved by all parties, that 
' the voice of the people shall rule.' Then why not allow 
the people of the townships of Ohio to say, by their votes, 
whether the traffic in intoxicating liquors shall be prohibit- 
ed in the townships in which they live, or continued as it 
is ? We have always doubted the power of the Legisla- 
ture, under the Constitution, to pass a local option law, 
but in this opinion, we hope we have been mistaken ; and 
if the Legislature has not the constitutional power to do so 
it certainly ought to have it, and we hope the Courts will 



36 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

have an opportunity to test the constitutionaHty of the 
Quinby local option bill." • 

The article referred to, is here re-produced in full as it 
appeared in the Herald. It was written at Columbus, 
Jan. 26, several days previous to its publication, having 
been received too late for insertion the week previous : 

Columbus, O., Jan. 27th, 1879. 
Eds. Herald : 

Dear Sirs : — Permit me, through the columns of your 
valuable paper, to say a few words in regard to the ques- 
tion of Local Option, as proposed by House bill No. 619. 
I am pleased to know that you approve of the main fea- 
tures of the bill. You say, rightly, that under our present 
Constitution, '' the only thing left for the Legislature to 
do, is to restrict the traffic." In my view, we cannot 
have prohibition thereunder, neither license. But we can 
regulate the traffic therein. 

Section 18 of the schedule of the Constitution is as fol- 
lows : *' No license to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall 
hereafter be granted in this State ; but the General Assem- 
bly may, by law, provide against the evils resulting there- 
from." 

It gives authority to * ' provide against evils resulting 
therefrom," the 'therefrom' refering to the traffic in intox- 
icating liquors. Sec. 6 of the Local Option bill would 
regulate the sale thereof and avoid the constitutional ob- 
jection to prohibition by excepting that the act shall not 
apply to intoxicating liquors, beer, ale or wine, sold on 
the prescription of a practicing physician for medicinal 
purposes. 

I would not be willing however, to affirm that the Legis- 
lature does not, under the Constitution, have authority to 
restrain and prohibit the sale of ale, beer a'nd wine. 
Authority was given by legislative enactment to city and 
village councils, throughout the State, under Sec. 199 of 
the Municipal Code to * 'regulate, restrain and prohibit 



CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE BILL. 3/ 

the keeping of ale, beer and porter houses and shops, and 
places of notorious and habitual resort for tippling and in- 
temperance." Under such authority was passed by many 
of the village councils throughout the State, what was 
known as the McConnelsville ordinance, by which the sale 
of ale, beer and wine was, in fact, not only restrained but 
prohibited. This ordinance was upheld and sustained in 
the Supreme Court of the State, in the case of Buckholter 
against the Incorporated Village of McConnelsville, in 20 
O. S., p 308. 

If the Legislature could delegate such authority to vil- 
lage councils it can certainly exercise it itself. 

In regard to any obstructions to the proposed law being 
carried into effect, by reason of the provisions of Art. 2, 
Sec. 25, of the Constitution, and which you quoted, and 
which I will here quote, I think you are mistaken : 

''See. 26. All laws of a general nature shall have a uni- 
form operation throughout the State ; nor shall any act, 
except such as relates to public schools, be passed to take 
effect upon the approval of any other authority than the 
General Assembly, except as otherwise provided in this 
Constitution." 

By the last section of the Local Option bill it is pro- 
posed that it shall take effect from and after its passage. 
So with most of the statutes that are enacted. 

You say you " know not by what construction of the 
above section of the Constitution the Legislature has 
power to enact a ' local option ' law ; a law that would de- 
pend upon the subsequent vote of a majority of the legal 
voters within a certain prescribed line for its vitality there- 
in." 

Let us see. It is a discretionary power granted, or pro- 
posed to be granted by the bill, to the people of the town- 
ship of the State, to determine by the vote of the electors 
of each township, whether or not to call into operation the 
law by which they may restrain the sale of intoxicating 



38 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

liquors, beer, ale and wine therein, except for medicinal 
purposes, upon the prescription of a practicing physician. 
I will now quote from a decision made by the Supreme 
Court of the State of Ohio, in case of the Cincinnati, Wil- 
mington and Zanesville Railroad Company against the 
Commissioners of Clinton Co., reported in ist O. S. Rep. 
pp. 'J J to 105. The decision was made on a very impor- 
tant question that arose in Clinton county. In 185 1 an 
act was passed by the Legislature authorizing the Com- 
missioners of Clinton county to subscribe ;^200,ooo to the 
railroad, and to issue bonds of the county therefor, which 
were to be paid by assessment on the property, both real 
and personal, in eleven of the townships. Two townships 
of the county were excepted from the operation of the 
law. The act submitted the question of the subscription 
to the road, and the issuing of the bonds, to the electors 
of the eleven townships, for their approval or rejection. 
The vote was had and carried affirmatively. The sub- 
scription of the ;^200,ooo was made, but afterward the 
Commissioners refused to issue the bonds, on demand of 
the officers of the road. A suit in mandamus was brought 
to compel them so to do. The question was raised as to the 
constitutionality of the act, by reason of the submission of 
the question of issuing the bonds to the people of the 
townships. 

The Supreme Court, in passing on the act, made use of 
the following language: "But because such discretion 
is given are these and all similar enactments to be deemed 
imperfect and migatory? It would take a bold man to 
affirm it. In what does this discretion consist? Certain- 
ly not in fixing the terms and conditions upon which the 
act may be performed, or the obligations thereupon at- 
taching. These are all irrevocably prescribed by the 
Legislature, and whenever called into operation conclu- 
sively govern every step taken. The law, therefore, is 
perfect, final and decisive in all its parts, and the discre- 



CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE BILL. 39 

tion given only relates to its execution. It may be em- 
ployed or not employed. If employed, it rules through- 
out ; if not employed, it still remains the law, ready to be 
employed whenever the preliminary condition is performed. 
The true distinction, therefore, is between the delegation 
of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a 
discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an author- 
ity or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under 
and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be don-e ; 
to the latter no valid objections can be made." 

This decision was made under the old Constitution, the 
spirit of which in this respect, however, was the same as 
the present. 

Again, in the case of the Trustees of Paris township. 
Union county, against Cherry et al., reported in 8th O. S. 
Rep. p.p. 565 to 569, this question came before the Court 
under the section of the present Constitution, heretofore 
quoted, Sutliff, Judge, deciding the case, in which Judges 
Swan, Brinkerhoff and Scott concurred. The case was 
decided before the fifth Judge, Peck, came upon the bench, 
but the decision being announced afterward. I quote 
from their decision : 

"■ But it is objected to the sufficiency of the petition that 
section 30 of the statute (the one under consideration by 
the court) in requiring a vote, is in conflict with section 26 
of Article 2, of the Constitution of the State, providing 
that no act, except such as relates to public schools, shall 
be passed to take effect upon the approval of any other 
authority than the General Assembly^ except as other- 
wise provided in the Constitution. It does not, however, 
appear that the provision of section 30 of the statute is, 
either in its letter or spirit, within that provision of the 
Constitution. The provision of the statute is not that 
the act shall take effect upon the authority of the town- 
ship. The vote of the township is rather to be re- 
garded as a condition precedent, upon which, by its 
provisions, the authority of the trustees depended. If 
the statute contained a provision, instead of the one ex- 



40 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

pressed by section 30, that the trustees should not pro- 
ceed to levy any tax, or make any purchase under said 
Statute, until the population of the township should 
amount to a specified number, or until requested by a cer- 
tain number of taxpayers, it certainly could not properly 
be said that the law thereby took effect upon the authority 
of the township, or upon any other authority than that of 
the General Assembly." 

In the syllabus of the case, they placed the following 
paragraph : 

'* Held, 1st, That the standing provision requiring such 
preliminary vote, is not in contravention of the 26th sec- 
tion of the 2d Article of the Constitution of the State." 

This seems to be explicit and to the point. 

Again, the same question has been decided in a late 
case, heard at the General Term of the superior Court of 
Cincinnati, decided in October 1878, wherein Thomas, 
et al, were plaintiffs, against Miles Greenwood, R. M. 
Bishop et al, defendants, before Judges Yaple, Force and 
Harmon, to test the validity of the issue of the bonds of 
Cincinnati, by the trustees of the Cincinnati Southern 
Railroad, for the purpose of constructing the road. The 
question was raised that the issue of the bonds was sub- 
mitted to a vote of the people of Cincinnati, and that it 
was, therefore, in conflict with the question already quot- 
ed. But the Court said that * ' The law took effect from 
its passage. The question submitted, was whether its 
provisions should be made available." 

This section of the Constitution, by these decisions, 
seems too well settled to admit of a doubt. The same 
principle is embodied in many of our statutes. 

It is not uncommon that bills passing through both 
branches of the Legislature take vitality upon the option 
of other authority than the Legislature. Such is the case 
with the law prescribing and regulating the duties and au- 
thority of county commissioners, in the levying of taxes 
for certain purposes, the erection of buildings and bridges, 



CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE BILL. 4I 

and the like. It is an optional power, resting with them 
to be put in execution or not, as they may choose. Such 
too, is the case with township trustees, in putting in opera- 
tion certain discretionary power with which they are in- 
vested. These laws are all of a general nature, taking 
effect from and after their passage, or on a day certain, 
but the provisions of which depend upon the option of the 
commissioners or trustees. 

I. W. QUINBY. 

Judge James H. Thompson, of Hillsborough, in an arti- 
cle to the Cincinnati Gazette of February ist, had the fol- 
lowing to say on the constitutionahty of the bill : 

*' A great mistake has existed in the mind of the advo- 
cates of Temperance on the question of Prohibition, under 
section i8 of the schedule of the Constitution of Ohio, 
which reads as follows: ' No license to traffic in intoxi- 
cating Hquors shall hereafter be granted to this State, but 
the General Assembly may by law provide against the 
evils resulting therefrom.' 

' 'The mistake consists in this, that one class of men claim 
that under this clause of the Constitution, as interpreted by 
the Supreme Court of Ohio, absolute and unlimited pro- 
hibitory laws cannot be enacted ; and the other class claim 
that, while it may be true that qualified prohibitory liquor 
laws may be enacted, they cannot be made efficient. 

*'The existing, accurate, logical, effective, legal truth is 
not maintained or developed by either one of these classes 
of opinions. 

''Absolute and unlimited prohibitory liquor laws do exist 
and are enforced in Ohio in degree, and the only question 
is, to what further degree will the General Assembly and 
the Courts go ? 

" In 3d Ohio State Reports, (Miller & Gibson) vs. The 
State, pages 484-5-6) Judge A. G. Thurman, in deliver- 
ing the opinion of the Court on the constitutionality of the 
law, says that 'while it was true that such laws did abso- 
lutely prohibit and forbid the sale of liquors (i) in any 
quantity to be drank on the premises, (2) to minors, (3) 
to drunkards, (4) demands the place where sold, and (5) 
commands that such place shall be shut up and abated, 



42 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

nevertheless that ' the laws are not prohibitory, nor do 
they interfere in any degree with any right of property. 
They seek to do by constitutional means what the Assem- 
bly is expressly authorized to do — * provide against the 
evils resulting from the traffic in intoxicating liquors. ' To 
this power, intoxicating liquors are expressly subjected by 
the constitutional provision I have quoted ; but were that 
provision stricken out of the Constitution, the power 
would yet exist, and for the same reason that it might be 
declared unlawful to sell poison to a child, or a dagger to 
a madman, it might be made an offense to sell intoxica- 
ting drink to a minor or a drunkard, and for the same rea- 
son that any other common nuisance might by law be aba- 
ted, the business of a common tippling house might be 
subjected to that fate. 

* ' Again, in 20th Ohio State Reports (Burckholter vs. 
Village of McConnelsville, page 312-3-4-5) in an opinion 
of Scott, C. J., the Supreme Court decide that the ordi- 
nance of the village of McConnelsville ' to restrain and 
prohibit ale, beer and porter houses and shops, and houses 
and places of habitual resort for tippling and intemper- 
ance, ' passed by the Village Council in September, 1869, 
was a lawful and constitutional ordinance and could be en- 
forced by law. 

' ' Now, it is irresistibly to be inferred and settled, from 
the foregoing decisions, that, according to the force and 
meaning of all language as interpreted by human revision, 
the General Assembly and the Supreme Court of the 
State have determined and decreed that naked, unquali- 
fied, total prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors of 
any kind to certain persons at certain times and certain places^ 
and on certain days, is in perfect accord and consonance 
with the provisions of the present Constitution of the 
State. To these degrees of prohibition the law has ad- 
vanced, and now the question is, what other and further 
degree of prohibition does Mr. Quinby's bill propose? 
Not one step further than did the McConnelsville ordi- 
nance under the then existing municipal law of the State, 
and which would now be sufficient had not the General 
Assembly struck out the word "prohibit" after the deci- 
sion in 20th Ohio State. But Mr. Quinby's bill, in its mode 
of attaining to the result of the McConnelsville ordinance, 
differs from the then existing municipal laws in this, to wit : 



CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE BILL. 43 

that by the provisions of his bill, the question of the de- 
struction and extirpation of saloons, tippling houses, ale, 
beer, and porter houses, is to be submitted in due form of 
laW to the electors of wards, townships, villages, &c., for 
their approval or disapproval of the execution of the pro- 
visions, by a majority vote of the qualified electors at an 
election to which such question is to be submitted. Is 
this submission of the question to popular vote for the 
determination of the execution of the provisions of the 
Local Option Law, unconstitutional? 

*'It is not, and I submit the decision of the Supreme 
Court of Ohio on identical similar questions, as that in 
the bill involving the execution or non-execution of State 
or remedial laws dependent on the popular vote, and will 
say nothing, but will simply refer to the decisions under 
the following heads : Railroad subscriptions by counties, 
1st O. S. , page 'j'jy 126; free turnpike subscriptions, i and 
2 mile laws and ditches and drains, 9th O. S. R., page 
540; nth O. S. R., 520; county seats, 5th O. S. R., pages 
497, 524; townships, 8th O. S. R., page 564; animals, 
24th O. S. R., page 334; Cincinnati S. R. R. subscription, 
2 1st O. S. R. , page 14, and provisions of common school 
laws in many details of their execution dependent upon 
the result of the popular vote — all sustaining the execu- 
tion of the provisions of the bill, according to the vote of 
the people." 

This letter of Thompson's was copied into several papers 
of the State. 

Copies of the lettter of the author of the bill, published 
in the Fayette County Herald, and Thompson's letter were 
placed in the possession of such of the members as were 
in doubt as to its constitutionality, which seemed to satisfy 
them on the question ; so much so, at least, that when the 
bill was under discussion in the House its constitutionaHty, 
or unconstitutionality, to the surprise of the author, was 
never alluded to in the debate. 

In addition to the foregoing, the author deems it well to 
quote from two cases found in the Ohio State Reports, 
which are of frequent reference in the Courts. The first 
cited is that of the case of Miller v. The State , 3 O. S. p. 



44 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

475, where the plaintiff in error was prosecuted for a viola- 
tion of Section 4 of the act of May i, 1854, entitled, 
' ' An act to provide against the evils resulting from the 
sale of intoxicating liquors in the State of Ohio." Thur- 
man, C. J., in passing upon the question of the constitu- 
tionality, says : 

"The idea apparently contended for, that the Constitu- 
tion recognizes an uncontrollable, inimitable right to sell 
intoxicating liquors, is manifestly erroneous. There is no 
snch right in respect to any commodity, however harm- 
less, for if there were, how could the various inspection 
laws, the laws relating to markets, the Hcense laws, the 
Sunday laws, &c., be sustained? A power of regulation, 
a power to provide against evils incident to traffic, a 
power to protect community against the frauds or dan- 
gerous practices of trade, is, in a greater or less degree, 
vested in every government, and certainly the people of 
Ohio are not wholly without this protection. If to guard 
against these evils, some restraint upon the traffic is neces- 
sary, it may lawfully be imposed, the fact being always 
born in mind, and always acted upon, that the power is a 
power to regulate, and not to destroy. To this power, in- 
toxicating liquors are expressly subjected by the constitu- 
tional provision I have quoted ; (Section 18 of the sched- 
ule : * No license to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall 
hereafter be granted in this State, but the General Assem-- 
bly may by law provide against the evils resulting there- 
from, ') but were that provision stricken out of the Consti- 
tution, the power would yet subsist ; and for the same 
reason that it might be declared unlawful to sell poison to 
a child, or a dagger to a m.adman, it might be made an 
offense to sell intoxicating drink to a drunkard ; and for 
the same reason that any other common nuisance might, 
by law, be abated, the business of a common tippling 
house might be subjected to that fate." 

The second case cited is in regard to the want of au- 
thority in a Mayor or Justice of the Peace to take original 
and final jurisdiction in a criminal case. Reference is hereby 
made to the case of Thomas v. Village of Ashland, in 12 



CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE BILL. 45 

O. S., p. 124, Gholson, C. J., when the Court used the 
following words ; 

**When the violation of an obligation is followed by 
imprisonment, as a punishment, and not as the result of a 
process of collection, either original or final, it becomes 
more strictly in the nature of a criminal offense, and the 
rules which govern criminal procedure in like cases must 
apply. 

''The Constitution, in the second section of the bill of 
rights, provides that ' the right of trial by jury shall be 
inviolate, ' and in the tenth section, that ' in any trial, in 
any Court, the party accused shall be allowed to appear 
and defend in person and with counsel ; to demand the 
nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have 
a copy thereof ; to meet the witnesses face to face ; and to 
have compulsory process to procure the attendance of wit- 
nesses in his behalf, and a speedy public trial by an impar- 
tial jury of the county or district, in which the offense is 
alleged to have been committed." 

" In view of these provisions, it would be a grave ques- 
tion whether the Legislature could create a new offense to 
be punished by imprisonment, and provide that the trial 
for such offense should be before a single Judge without a 
jury." 

And then the Court goes on to say that it is satisfied 
that the Mayor of a village should try a person charged 
with an offense punishable by imprisonment, and impose 
the sentence of imprisonment. 

The author has been particular upon this point, for the 
reason that some persons insisted that the bill should have 
been criminal in its nature, providing for fine and impris- 
onment instead of an action for damages ; and to allay 
criticism in this respect he has cited the decision of Judge 
Smith, and the case of TJiomas v. The Village of Ashland. 



46 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE BILL IN COMMITTEE. 

AS heretofore stated, the bill had been read the second 
time in the House and referred to the tender mercies 
of the Committee on Temperance. What was to be its fate 
there was not known. All the while petitions, as hereto- 
fore shown, had been pouring in, like a deluge, asking for 
its passage. The author of it went before the committee, 
explained its provisions throughout, and expected that it 
would be, at the proper time, reported back to the House. 
But it was not. Fearing that the committee might stran- 
gle it, and refuse to return it to the House, he again went 
before the committee and insisted that they should make a 
report, and no longer hold it, and informed some of them 
privately that if they failed to do so, he would embrace 
the first favorable opportunity in the House to move to 
discharge the committee from further consideration of it. 
This had'the desired effect, and on Tuesday, March 4, the 
House having reached, in its order of business, the Re- 
ports of Standing Committees, the Committee on Temper- 
ance reported the bill back to the House without recom- 
mendation, but with an amendment that it should not 
apply to ' ' manufacturers nor wholesale dealers in alco- 
holic liquors," the following being the report of the com- 
mittee, as submitted by Mr. Kellogg : 

'' The Committee on Temperance, to whom was referred 
H. B. No. 619, by Mr. Quinby, 'To secure to the citizens 
of the State of Ohio, Local Option in the sale of, or pro- 
hibition of the sale of, intoxicating liquors, beer, ale and 
wine, except for medicinal purposes, ' having had the same 
under consideration, report it back without recommenda- 
tion, with the following amendment. At the end of Section 



THE BILL IN COMMITTEE. 47 

6, add the following words : ' nor to manufacturers, nor 

to wholesale dealers in alcoholic liquors. 

''S. S. Wolf, 
*'Thos. S. Luccock, 
*'Benj. F, Lovelace, 
''John Hardy, 
''W. D. Tyler, 
''H. Kellogg." 

This was an unusual form of report on a bill, and 
showed a lack of harmony in the deliberations of the com- 
mittee. It avoided on the part of the committee any re- 
sponsibility for the bill after coming back to the House. 
Usually, committees are expected to be ready to defend 
their position, taken in regard to a measure, as either for 
or against it. It placed the bill in a precarious condition. 
One of the committee, although present in the House, 
when the committee had retired to report on the bill, re- 
fused to join them, though invited so to do, and as it was 
his duty to do. He afterward, however, voted for engross- 
ment, as did Messrs. Wolf, Lovelace, Luccock: and Kellogg 
of the committee. It was understood, outside of the com- 
mittee, at the time, and afterward, that Messrs. Luccock 
and Kellogg were heartily in favor of the measure, and 
that the others were opposed to it. This may have been 
the reason of the committee's singular report, adopted it 
may have been, as a compromise, in the nature of a jury's 
report agreeing to disagree. It would have been more 
courageous however, to have presented a majority and 
minority report, the one favoring indefinite postponement, 
the other recommending its passage. 

The question first being on the amendment, as reported 
by the committee, it was adopted, without a division of the 
House, or the calling of the ayes and nays. The amend- 
ment having been agreed to, the question was upon the 
engrossment of the bill for a third reading, on a day to be 
fixed by the House. It was a matter of some conjec- 
ture with many of the friends of the measure whether 



48 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

or not the House would engross it. Should the vote 
on the engrossment be taken viva voce, and a division be 
demanded, and the House should refuse to engross it, the 
bill would be lost. So it was thought best that the author 
be heard upon the merits of the bill at that time, and that 
upon the vote on engrossment the ayes and nays should be 
demanded, in order that a record might be made. 

Accordingly he obtained the floor and delivered the fol- 
lowing speech: 



CHAPTER IX. 

MR. QUINBY's speech ON THE ENGROSSMENT OF THE BILL. 

MR, SPEAKER : It was not my intention to speak 
upon the merits of the bill, upon the motion to 
engross it for a third reading. 

I had hoped that the committee on Temperance, having 
had it under consideration for so long a time, would have re- 
ported favorably upon it. Especially so, knowing as we 
do, that hundreds of petition* from different counties of 
the State, have been introduced here, favoring its passage 
and referred to that committee. But yesterday there were 
petitions for it signed by nearly one thousand persons in 
the aggregate. To-day the flood has been much greater, 
reaching about five thousand in number. And yet, in the 
face of these petitions, and in disregard of them, the com- 
mittee has reported the bill back "without recommenda- 
tion." I am really surprised that they have ignored them. 

I should have been pleased to have had a favorable re- 
port. As it is, I am compelled, here and now, to make a 
fight for the Hfe of the bill, for should the House refuse to 
engross it, its vitality is gone. And while I do not .pro- 
pose to criticise the action of the committee, I must say 



MR. quinsy's speech. 49 

that it would have been no more hazardous to it, had the 
report been in favor of its indefinite postponement. 

Such being the status of the bill, I presume no apology 
is necessary for the time I shall consume in attempting its 
vindication, and the removal of the cloud cast upon it by 
the report. 

Mr. Speaker, I shall for a time, attempt to explain in 
detail the various provisions of the bill, and I feel that the 
gentlemen holding seats upon this floor, who have so uni- 
formly been courteous to me personally, and attentive to 
what I may have said, will once more honor me in like 
manner. 

It will be observed that by the first section, it is made 
the duty of the trustees of the several townships of the 
State, upon the petition in writing, of thirty or more of 
the electors of any township, asking that a vote of the , 
electors of such township may be had upon the question 
of the sale or non-sale therein of the liquors therein men- 
tioned, to call an election, for the purpose of submitting 
to the voters of such township the question of the sale, or 
non-sale therein of such liquors, except for medicinal pur- 
poses, upon the prescription of a practicing physician. 
Notice of such election shall be given by posting written 
or printed notices, in at least ten public places in such 
township, or by publication in some newspaper of general 
circulation therein. 

By this provision, it will be seen, that at least thirty 
persons must join in the application for the vote, thus 
withholding an expression on the question unless there is 
a reasonable probability of the prohibition being success- 
ful in issue joined at the polls. It was thought best to 
base the demand on a certain number, rather than upon a 
ratio of the whole number of voters in the township, that 
there might no uncertainty arise as to the demand being 
sufficient. Thirty days' notice to the trustees is ample 
time for them to give ten days' notice of the election. 

7 



50 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

I have been asked, why fix the first Monday in April as 
the time for the election ? Why not at the October elec- 
tion ? I answer that the time stated in the bill is a day 
now fixed for the people of the townships of the State to 
assemble for the purpose of choosing township officers ; 
a time when they meet to confer about local affairs. Again, 
it would save any additional expense in taking such a vote, 
and at a time when there is a reasonably full vote cast, 
which might not be the case at a special election. 

In section two the form of ballot is prescribed, and the 
manner of receiving and counting the vote, and it also 
contemplates the use of a separate ballot-box. 

Section three makes it the duty of the township clerk to 
enter the result of the election, upon the record book of 
the township, giving the whole number of votes cast, and 
the number for and against the sale. Also that he shall 
file the poll-book and tally sheets, together with a copy of 
the notice of such election. This would avoid any con- 
troversy in relation to the facts, should a civil action for 
damages be brought against any one, and render the proof 
easy. 

Section four, provides that if a majority of the votes 
cast, shall be for the sale of intoxicating liquors, beer, ale 
and wine, then it shall be lawful to sell the same in such 
township, subject to such restrictions, regulations and pen- 
alties, as now exist by statute, or may hereafter be pro- 
vided ; but if a majority of such votes be against the sale, 
that it shall be unlawful to sell, except for medicinal pur- 
poses, after the first day of the following June. 

Section five makes the penalties of the election laws 
now in force, regulating township elections, apply in full 
force at such election, and to the judges as well. It also 
authorizes the payment of any expenses incurred, out of 
the township funds. 

Section six provides that in any township where the 
majority of the ballots are against the sale of liquors there- 



MR. QUINBY S SPEECH. 5 I 

in, that after the first day of June next following the taking 
of such vote, if any person shall, by himself or herself, or 
by or in the name of any partnership or firm, or company, 
or by agent or otherwise, in any public place, or place of 
public resort, or in any saloon, eating-house, bazaar, room, 
restaurant, tavern, hotel or inn, keep for sale, or expose 
to sale, or keep for the purpose of giving away any intoxi- 
cating hquor, beer, ale, or wine, such person or persons 
shall be liable in the sum of fifty dollars, to be recovered 
as liquidated damages, for every day that he, she or they, 
may keep for sale, or expose for sale, or keep for the pur- 
pose of giving away, any intoxicating liquor, beer, ale, or 
wine, in a civil action. Such action shall be brought in 
the name of the township, against such person or persons, 
but this act shall not apply to such Hquors sold at drug- 
stores on the prescription of a practicing physician for 
medicinal purposes. 

Some may say, why not make the selling a criminal of- 
fense? My answer is, that by a civil action, a justice of 
the peace, either with or without a jury, as either party 
may elect, may have final jurisdiction in any sum under 
three hundred dollars, unless the case be appealed, in 
which case an appeal bond must be given, sufficient to se- 
cure any judgment rendered, with accruing costs, in the 
Court of Common Pleas. I further answer, that a case 
would be much more readily prosecuted in the township. 
Witnesses would not be required to attend at a distance 
so remote from their homes. The expense of prosecution 
would be very much lessened, as any one knows who is at 
all familiar with court proceedings. Again, the case 
could be immediately tried, while the evidence was fresh 
and clear in the minds of the witnesses. 

It is a fact well known that witnesses become very for- 
getful sometimes, when called upon to testify in the prose- 
cution of liquor cases. 

Again, there would be no expense to the county at 



52 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. ' . 

large by reason of calling witnesses to testify before the 
grand jury. There would be no inconvenience and ex- 
pense to witnesses, in awaiting the tardy action of the 
grand-jury. Each township would bear the whole expense 
of prosecutions, and they would not be saddled on the 
county at large, to be paid out of the county treasury, as 
under the present liquor statutes. 

Lastly, and much the stronger reason for making it a 
civil action, rather than a criminal one, is, that in a civil 
action the jury or the justice, as the case might be, would 
be required to find only a fair preponderance of the 
evidence that the defendant had violated the law, while in 
a criminal case the jury must find the defendant guilty 
beyond a reasonable doubt. 

It will also be noticed that by this section, the keeping 
for sale, or exposing to sale is made unlawful. In this lies 
largely the efficacy of the proposed act. 

Heretofore, under all the laws relating to the traffic, an 
actual sale must be proved and that beyond a reasonable 
doubt. In this respect the existing liquor statutes are 
most unjust, weak and unreasonable. It has always been, 
and yet is, almost impossible to get positive proof of the 
sale of intoxicating liquor, to be drank upon the premises 
where sold, or sales to a minor, or to a person in the habit 
of getting intoxicated. Not because such sales are not 
made. The party selhng may intrench himself behind the 
statute, as he has a right to do in all criminal cases, by 
refusing to criminate himself, unless he voluntarily places 
himself upon the witness stand. The party drinking the 
liquor is almost always an unwilling witness. No by- 
stander is willing to testify positively that it was intoxicat- 
ing liquor that the party drank. He did not taste it him- 
self and can not say. 

So the present laws build up a barrier to prosecutions, 
and hedge in, and shield, and protect their violators. If 
you see a man enter a saloon, and afterward come out 



MR. quinby's speech. 53 

beastly drunk, you cannot, under the law, testify that the 
saloon-keeper made him so, nor that he keeps intoxicat- 
ing liquors, although he may have a wagon load of whisky- 
kegs piled up about the door of his saloon, or a hundred 
bottles in his windows filled with the fiery liquid. 

Under this proposed act it would be competent testi- 
mony to prove that the defendant keeps a saloon ; that it 
is a place of public resort ; that he exposes to sale therein, 
or offers for sale, intoxicating Hquor, beer, ale or wine ; or 
that he has beer kegs about his door. This would be 
competent testimony, and might possibly be proven by 
fifty persons, no one of whom ever saw a man in the act 
of drinking intoxicating liquors inside the saloon, nor who 
ever crossed its threshold. 

Section seven provides that it shall be the duty of the 
Prosecuting Attorney to bring a civil suit for damages in 
the name of such township, before a Justice of the Peace, 
or in the Court of Common Pleas, and that ten per cent, of 
all damages recovered shall be retained by him, and ninety 
per cent, paid into the school fund of the township, which 
shall be used in the support of the schools of said town- 
ship ; and that there may be as many suits brought as there 
are daily violations of the statute. 

The duty of the Prosecuting Attorney hereunder would 
be analagous to his present duties. His fees for collecting 
would be the same as the law now gives him. Leaving it 
optionary with any two of the Township Trustees to pros- 
ecute would have a tendency to guard against any frivo- 
lous or malicious suits. Should the Trustees fail in their 
duty, and the violation be open and flagrant, then twenty 
electors may, by written request, order the Prosecuting 
Attorney so to do. 

The question of jurisdiction between the Justices and 
Common Pleas Courts is undisturbed. It is determined by 
the amount claimed. The right of appeal from the deci- 
sion of the Justice, or the verdict of a jury in a Justice's 



54 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

Court, I do not propose to disturb ; but in case of appeal, 
there must be an undertaking entered into by appellant. 

Suppose a party would sell for five successive days after 
the law was called into operation ? Suit might be brought 
in Common Pleas for two hundred and fifty dollars ; or 
there might be five separate suits before a Justice — one for 
each day's violation. The bringing of one suit is no bar 
to. another for a violation occurring on a different day. In 
other words, there may be as many suits brought as there 
are daily violations of the act. 

The damages collected are to go to the school fund of 
the township prosecuting. Many fines collectable under 
present statutes go there. To some extent they would 
reimburse the township for the trouble and expense of 
prosecutions. 

Section eight is in reference to the damages and costs, 
being a lien on the real estate where sold. Its provisions, 
in some respects, are very similar in effect to what is known 
as the Adair Law. It had been found quite effective, un- 
til crippled by amendments made subsequently. I wish 
to simply call the attention of the members to this section. 
They can find it by referring to their bill-books. I will 
not consume time by reading it. 

The object of this section, as will be seen, is to subject 
the real estate, with the building thereon, occupied for the 
purpose of making sale of the liquors, liable for the pay- 
ment of the judgment and costs rendered. 



CHAPTER X. 

MR. QUINBY's speech ON THE ENGROSSMENT OF THE BILL 

CONTINUED. 

MR. SPEAKER : — I have now given a synopsis of 
the bill, and briefly stated some of the reasons why 
such provisions should be made. There are a few other 



MR. quinby's speech. 55 

points to which I desire to allude. It may be asked, 
** Why not make it apply to counties instead of townships, 
so that the vote would be taken in an entire county at one 
time?" In answer, I will say that it is better that each 
township regulate its own affairs in this respect. The vote 
is more easily taken. If prohibitory, it requires no certi- 
fying to any central authority. It is less cumbersome, and 
more readily enforced. It keeps it out of county politics. 
It ought not to be made, in my judgment, a political ques- 
tion. I hope it will not be. It is a question pertaining 
to the morals of a community, the protection of society 
against an evil influence, against the conduct of evil dis- 
posed persons. It is a question in which all order-lov- 
ing people, all who desire the welfare, happiness, peace, 
quiet, comfort and prosperity of a community are inter- 
ested. All who would have society grow better, rather 
than worse. 

It may be said, " Why not enforce it by fine and impris- 
onment ? " I think the amount of damages to be recov- 
ered sufficient to deter any one from a violation of the 
statute. Fifty dollars a day in liquidated damages, with 
liability in as many suits as there are daily violations, is 
sufficient punishment. A civil statute is more easily en- 
forced that a criminal one. There would be no necessity 
for filing an affidavit, nor for issuing a warrant. No arrest 
of the defendant, no preliminary trial, no binding over to 
Court to await the sitting of the grand jury. There would 
be no calling of witnesses before a grand jury ; no in- 
dictment, with all its technicalities and formalities ; no 
motion to quash indictment. There would be no charge of 
the Judge to the jury, that they must find the defendant 
guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution 
would proceed in a quiet, practical manner, in the town- 
ship, where the witnesses are near home, and where, on 
judgment rendered, an execution would issue to the con- 
stable, and he would seize upon all the personal property 



56 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

of the defendant in and about the premises, without ex- 
emption, and if insufficient to pay the damages and costs, 
the judgment might be made a Hen on the premises occu- 
pied. 

Again, it may be asked, ** Why do you make the ex- 
ception allowing these liquors to be sold for medicinal pur- 
poses, upon the prescription of a practicing physician?" 
My answer is, that it may avoid constitutional objection. 
To bring it within the purview of the Constitution. In my 
judgment we can not have these under entire prohibition. 
Not that I would have it so, but that it is so. Neither can 
we have license. Every statute regulating the liquor 
traffic must fall between these two extremes. Section 
1 8 of the Schedule to the Constitution was adopted on its 
submission, by a vote of 113,239 for, and 104,255 against, 
and became a separate section of Article 15, It reads as 
follows : *' No license to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall 
hereafter be granted in the State, but the General Assem- 
bly may, by law, provide against the evils resulting there- 
from." The only thing left for the Legislature to do is to 
restrict the traffic. We can regulate it. And restricting 
to sales for medicinal purposes upon the prescription of a 
practicing physician, is a regulation I would not be un- 
derstood, however, as saying that the Legislature does not 
have the power, under the Constitution, to restrain and 
prohibit the sale of ale, beer, and wine. The Constitu- 
tion uses the words " intoxicating liquors." Perhaps beer, 
ale, and wine, at the time of its adoption were not consid- 
ered intoxicating. Some do not consider them so now. 
It is not sought, however, by this bill to make prohibition 
of the sale of ale, beer and wine. It puts them along- 
side of intoxicating liquors. I am well aware that there 
are those who differ with me on this point, and insist 
that, as a police regulation, we may have prohibition of 
the sale of intoxicating liquors. That in regulating the 
traffic we may entirely suspend it. Judge Thurman has 



MR. QUINBY S SPEECH. $7 

used Strong language on this point. I honor him for it. 
It was in deciding the case of Miller v. Gibson, 3 O. S., 
p.p. 484-5-6. I invite the attention of gentlemen who may 
differ with me, to that decision. And while he does not say 
that it may be prohibited, he does say that if restraint is nec- 
essary, it maybe lawfully imposed, though the Constitution 
were silent upon it, ''for the reason that it might be de- 
clared unlawful to sell poison to a child, or a dagger to a 
madman, it might be made an offense to sell intoxicating 
drink to a minor or a drunkard ; and for the same reason 
that any other common nuisance might, by law, be abated, 
the business of a common tippling-house might be sub- 
jected to that fate." 

I shall not, Mr. Speaker, attempt to go into a consider- 
ation of the evils resulting from the trade in intoxicating 
liquors. The enormity of the evil is known to all of you. 
I shall not attempt to enumerate the cost to the State in 
pauperism and crime. Cincinnati, with its two thousand 
five hundred saloons, making a continuous front of six 
miles, counting each saloon as occupying ten feet of front, 
must be mustering an immense army of drunkards, and 
sending out therefrom in one long, dark, procession, a fear- 
ful train of waste, desolation, poverty and crime. Almost 
every paper brings to us some account of a death caused 
by drunkenness, some murder or suicide. 

I do not expect this bill, if it becomes a law, to stay the 
tide of intemperance in the cities. It would be futile to 
vote upon the question there. It is the country districts 
that are to be profited by it. 

In the cities and larger villages, they have police forces, 
to maintain order and protect individuals from the insults 
and personal abuse of men maddened by the fiery fluid. 
They have their council and their Mayor to enforce the 
ordinances. They are incorporated, and disorder can be 
suppressed to some extent. They have their work-houses 
and village prisons to which to sentence offenders. But in 

8 



58 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

the unincorporated villages, and in the townships they have 
no such protection. They are without protection almost. 
There are many of these little villages with from ten to fifty 
families in each. There are many in each county of the 
State with post-offices, smith-shops, stores, churches, and 
school-houses. They are a thrifty, industrious, happy 
people. Their people are a church-going people. They love 
God, follow his precepts, and keep his commandments. 
They are peaceful and quiet in their habits, and want no sa- 
loons established in their midst. They want no drunken 
shouts, no ribald songs, resounding in the streets. They 
want protectio7i from the curse of intemperance. Do you 
wonder that they send up petitions from the villages and 
townships, without respect to party, for the pitiful privilege 
of voting whisky out of them. It is not a question of party 
with them, it is a question of self-preservation, the leading 
instinct of man's nature. Preservation of peace, home, hap- 
piness, comfort, purity. Preservation of the right to pass 
through the streets unmolested in person, and without 
insult to their feelings. Shall we not heed their voices. 
Let us not spurn their petitions, nor cast them idly aside. 
Rather let them represent as they do, the active, intelli- 
gent, thoughtful minds of the men and women of this 
State, pleading in earnest and plaintive voices for the privi- 
lege of suppressing in their midst, the dens of infamy, cor- 
ruption and vice, that are dealing out the liquid potions, 
that are sapping away the manhood of those who frequent 
them and leading them down to destruction and death. 

Fathers, and mothers, and wives, are asking for this 
measure. To them it means a deliverance from a mighty 
foe. They are beseeching you ! Will you not hear them ? 
Is there no hope, no deliverance ! The responsibility rests 
with us ! Let us arouse ourselves to the importance of 
this occasion ! Let us appreciate the duties of this 
hour, and be brave in the discharge of our duty, and 
obedient and faithful to the wishes of the masses of 



VOTE ON ENGROSSMENT OF THE BILL. 59 

the people of this State, whom we are sent here to rep- 
resent. 

Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will engross the bill and 
order it to a third reading. 



CHAPTER XL 

VOTE ON THE ENGROSSMENT OF THE BILL, AND OTHER MAT- 
TERS CONCERNING IT. 

THE question being upon the engrossment of the bill, 
the yeas and nays were demanded, ordered, and 
resulted — yeas 50, nays 26, as follows : 
Those who voted in the affirmative were — 

Messrs. Alexander, Boyce, Cowgill, Crosso7i, Dawson, 
Dempcey, Dodds, Dow, Edwards, Elliott^ Eylar, Fenton, 
Forsythe, Foster, Groschner, Haley, Hardy of Coshocton, 
Herrick, Hitchcock, Kellogg, Kerr, Leggett, Levering, 
Lovelace, Luccock, Mackey, McCoy of Lawrence, Morrey, 
Oglevee, Paine, Palmer, Perkins, Quinby, Qiiinn, Reed of 
Trumbull, Rimer, Sage, Scott, Sheets, Smead, Stubbs, Sul- 
livan of Hamilton, Thorp, Townsend, Trovijtger, Tyler of 
Licking, Wales, Wasson, WiUiamson, and Wolf — 50. 

Those who voted in the negative were — 

Messrs. Achauer, Bo hi of Putnam, Bull, Clotcgh, Estill, 
Hardy of Defiance, Hendrick, Hostetter, Hume, Johnson, 
Loder, Meuser, Norton, Sazvyer, Sexton, Swaim, Turner, 
Tyler of Wyandot, Van Cleaf, Washburn, White, Worley, 
Wright, and Speaker — 26. 

So the motion was agreed to, and the bill ordered to be 
read the third time Friday next. 

Of those voting for engrossment, thirty were Republi- 
cans, eighteen Democrats and two Nationals, Twenty-six 
voting against the bill were all Democrats. 

(Republicans in roman. Democrats in itahcs, Nationals 
in Small-caps.) 

Absent and not voting Messrs. Baker, Booth, Brown, 



6o LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

of Hamilton, Carpenter, Carter^ Conkright, Covert, Dal- 
zell, Danford, Douglass, Dunham, Ellis, Greene, Guthery, 
Harman, Hart, Hayinan, Jessup, Klimper, Mack, Marsh, 
Maury, McCoy, of Wayne, Parker, Poe, Reed of Ross, 
Seifert, Smith, Sturgeon, Sullivan of Miami, Williams, 32. 
Democrats 23 ; Republicans 8 ; Nationals i. 

Afterward, on March 6, Messrs. Sullivan of Miami, 
Greene and Harman, who had been absent when the vote 
was taken asked and obtained leave to have their votes re- 
corded upon the motion to engross the bill. Their names 
being called, they all voted, "aye." 

On Thursday, March 6, the bill having been set for third 
reading on Friday, March 7, 

Upon motion of Mr. Quinby, H. B. No. 619 was taken 
up and set for third reading on Tuesday next, and made 
the special order for 1 1 o'clock A. M. of said day. 

This was done by the author for a three-fold purpose. 
First, to give all the members of the House a fair oppor- 
tunity of being present when the bill came up in the 
House for passage. Some were absent on committees, 
others at home on sick leave, and this notice would give 
them all an opportunity of being present, unless physical- 
ly incapacitated. Second, to give ardent friends of the 
measure due notice of the time when it would come up for 
discussion. Many had written to the author, desiring to be 
informed of the time, that they might be present. Third, 
that Friday being near the close of the week, the discus- 
sion would probably carry it over until Saturday and there 
might be a sHm House. Besides, it gave opportunity to 
make the bill a special order for a certain hour. By the 
rules, a bill having been made a special order, when the 
hour is reached, the special order takes precedence of any 
other business before the House. 



THE BILL ON ITS THIRD READING. 6l 

CHAPTER XII. 

THE BILL ON ITS THIRD READING. 

ON Tuesday, March ii, at ii o'clock, the hour for the 
consideration of the special order having arrived, 
Mr. Quinby called it up, and the bill was read a third 
time. So great was the interest manifested in the result 
of the discussion, and the vote upon the bill, that many of 
the noted temperance men and women of the State had 
come to Columbus to hear the debate, and watch its pro- 
gress and its fate. The sofas on either side of the House 
were filled with visitors, and the lobby and galleries, with 
anxious spectators. Both the author of the bill and the 
Speaker had kept their eyes upon the clock, waiting for 
the hour to arrive. It was evident that the impending 
struggle for its passage was to be one of the most exciting 
and closely contested that had ever taken place in the 
House. Although its author had all the time hoped that 
it would not be made a partisan question by the Demo- 
cratic side, it had been tending strongly in that direction 
since the vote upon the engrossment the week previous. 
He had hoped that all would vote upon it from principle, 
and not from a party standpoint. 

As soon as the Clerk commenced reading the bill, the 
House become unusually quiet and attentive. When it 
was finished, the author proposed some unimportant 
amendments in the phraseology of the bill, which were 
adopted without division. He had hoped that an open, 
fair and manly discussion might be allowed to take place 
upon the merits of the bill, and that no effort would be 
made to weaken or destroy it by amendments. 

It is a fact well known among parliamentarians that the 
most effective way sometimes, to kill a bill by the enemies 
of it, is by offering amendments, which if adopted would 



62 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

render it valueless and distorted. In this hope of fair 
treatment he was to be disappointed, however. So soon 
as the unimportant amendments had been agreed to, 
the member from Washington, Mr. Bohl, obtained the 
floor and moved to amend by making it apply only to 
Clinton county in its operation as a statute. He made 
a short sheech.in support of the motion, which is herein 
given in the subjoined report of speeches. Without 
coming to any vote on the amendment, the discussion 
proceeded, lasting throughout all of Tuesday and Wednes- 
* day, the House taking a recess from Tuesday evening, 
over until Wednesday morning, so that in the morning the 
first business after the opening prayer, by Rev. O. J. 
Nave, was the consideration of the bill with the pending 
amendment. 

Speech after speech was made upon the bill, first by the 
author of the bill, then by Hardy of Coshocton, Townsend, 
Oglevee, Alexander, Seifert, Bloom and others. The 
interruptions of the speakers, by questions from other 
of the members were frequent, but generally free from as- 
perity. The replies were courteous. The debate raged 
all day on Wednesday, the House doing no other busi- 
ness, of any consequence, and that only by general con- 
sent. The interest of the public in the debate had in- 
creased rather than diminished. Great crowds of people 
stood outside in the lobby. Senators came over from the 
other branch of the general assembly, and such of the 
State officers as could escape for a time from business, 
could be seen among the throng. Finally late in the after- 
noon of Wednesday, the House reached a vote, first on 
the motion of Mr. Bohl to refer to a select committee of 
one to amend. 

Those who voted in the affirmative were — 

Messrs. Bohl, Bull, Clough, Crosley, Dodds, Groschner, 
Hardy of Defiance, Johnson, Maury, Poe, Turner, Tyler 
of Wyandot, Washburn, and Worley — 14. 



THE BILL ON ITS THIRD READING. 63 

Those who voted in the negative were — 

Messrs. Achauer, Alexander, Baker, Bloom, Boyce, 
Brown of Putnam, Carpenter, Carter, Conkright, Covert, 
Cowgill, Dawson, Dempcey, Dow, Edwards, Elliott, Ellis, 
Eylar, Fenton, Forsythe, Greene, Hardy of Coshocton, 
Hart, Harmon, Herrick, Hitchcock, Hume, Jessup, Kel- 
logg, Kerr, Klimper, Leggett, Levering, Loder, Lovelace, 
Luccock, Mack, McCoy of Lawrence, McCoy of Wayne, 
Morrey, Oglevee, Perkins, Quinby, Reed of Trumbull, 
Rimer, Sage, Scott, Sextro, Sheets, Smead, Stubbs, Sul- 
livan of Hamilton, Sullivan of Miami, Swaim, Thorp, 
Townsend, Trovinger, Tyler of Licking, Van Cleaf, 
Wales, Wasson, White, Williamson, and Wright — 64. 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

The author was much gratified at the failure of the 
amendment and felt like returning a vote of thanks to the 
members who stood by him, especially those on the op- 
posite side of the chamber. 

After another amendment offered by Mr. Sextro, the 
purport of which it is not worth while to discuss here, as 
it was voted down, the House at last reached a vote upon 
the bill, amidst great excitement, and yet, so subdued and 
quiet that one could almost hear the falling of a pin on the 
floor. As the call of the ayes and nays was about com- 
pleted, it became apparent that the bill was defeated, and 
the lines of disappointment could be traced upon the feat- 
ures of that great audience. 

The question being '* Shall the Bill pass?" the yeas and 
nays were ordered, and resulted — yeas 39, nays zi4, as 
follows : 

Those who voted in the affirmative were — 

Messrs. Alexander, Baker, Boyce, Conkright, Cowgill, 
Dawson, Dow, Edwards, Elliott, Eyler, Fenton, Forsythe, 
Foster, Greene, Harmon, Herrick, Hitchcock, Kellogg, 
Kerr, Leggett, Levering, Luccock, Mack, Morrey, Oglevee, 
Perkins, Quinby, Reed of Trumbull, Sage, Scott, Smead, 
Stubbs, Sullivan of Miami, Thorp, Townsend, Tyler, of 
Licking, Wales, Wasson, and Williamson — 39. 



64 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

Those who voted in. the negative were — 

Messrs. Achauer, Bloom, Bohl, Brown of Hamilton, 
Bi'own of Putnam, BulU Carpenter, Carter, Clovgh, Covert, 
Crosley, Dodds, Ellis, Groschner, Hardy of Coshocton, 
Hardy of Defiance, Hart, Hayman, Hume, Jessup, Johnson^ 
Klimper, Loder, Lovelace, Maury, McCoy, of Lawrence, 
McCoy of Wayne, Poe, Rimer, Seifert, Sextro, Sheets, Sul- 
livan of Hamilton, Swaim, Trovinger, Turner, Tyler of 
Wyandot, Van Cleaf, Washburn, White, Williams, Wor- 
ley, Wright, and Speaker — 44. 

So the bill was lost. 

Of those who voted for the bill all were Republicans, 
except — 

Messrs. Alexander, Baker, Elliott, Eyler, Levering, 
and Tyler of Licking. Of all who voted against it all 
were Democrats, except Covert and Carpenter. The fol- 
lowing is a list of those that were absent or present not 
voting, most of whom were ** artful dodgers." Messrs. 
Booth, Crosson, Dalzell, Danford, Dempcy, Douglass, 
Estill, Guthery, Haley, Hendrick, Hostetter, Mackey, Marsh, 
Meuser, Norton, Paine, Palmer, Parker^ Quinn, Reed of 
Ross, Sawyer, Smith, Sturgeon, Wolf. 

Of those absent, or present not voting, there were. 
Republicans, 4 ; Democrats, 19 ; Nationals, 2. (Republi- 
cans in roman. Democrats in italics, Nationals in small 
caps.) 

Two committees were out by leave of the House at the 
time of the discussion, one making an investigation at 
Longview Asylum, with rooms at the Grand Hotel, Cincin- 
nati ; the other the committee making some investigation 
in the Northwestern part of the State on the Beaver Ditch, 
but the latter returned a short time before the House came 
to a vote on the bill. 

The Chairman of the Temperance Committee, during the 
time the bill was under discussion, was in and out of his 
seat, ever ready to dodge when the vote was called, as he 
afterward did. Another member, after making a speech 
against the bill, absented himself from the House when the 



THE BILL ON ITS THIRD READING. 65 

vote was taken. Others came in after the conflict was 
over and the bill defeated, and asked and obtained leave 
to vote against it. 

The journal of the House shows Messrs. Sawyer, Marsh 
and Norton voting against it, afterward, and Mr. Paine for 
it, though such votes could not effect the result in any 
manner. 

Mr. Carpenter, recorded as voting against the bill, first 
voted for it and afterward changed his vote to ''no" for 
the purpose of moving a reconsideration, which was after- 
wards done by Mr. Swaim, who, anticipating the purpose 
of the change, obtained the recognition of the Speaker, and 
moved a reconsideration, in order that the House, failing to 
reconsider the bill, it could not be brought up again, such 
being the rule of the House. 

The question being upon agreeing to the motion, the 
yeas and nays were ordered, and resulted — yeas 41, nays 
41, as follows: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were — 

Messrs. Alexander, Baker, Boyce, Carpenter, Conk- 
right, Cowgill, Dawson, Dempcey, Dodds, Dow, Edwards, 
Elliott, Fenton, Foster, Greene, Harmon, Herrick, Hitch- 
cock, Kellogg, Kerr, Leggett, Levering, Luccock, Mack, 
Morrey, Oglevee, Perkins, Quinby, Reed of Trumbull, 
Sage, Scott, Smead, Stubbs, Sullivan of Mianii, Thorp, 
Townsend, Tyler of Licking, Wales, Wasson, and William- 
son — 41. 

Those who voted in the negative were — 

Messrs. Achauer, Bloom, Bold, Booth, Brozvn of Hamil- 
ton, Brown of Putnam, Bzdl, Carter, Clough, Crosley, Ellis, 
GroscJiner, Hardy of Coshocton, Hardy of Defiance, Hart, 
Hume, Jessiip, Johnson, Klimpcr, Loder, Lovelace, Maiiry, 
McCoy of Wayne, Poe, Rimer, Scifert, Sextro, Sheets, Siilli- 
van of Hamilton, Szvaim, Trovinger, Turner, Tyler of 
Wyandot, Van Cleaf, Washbuini, White, Williajns, Worley, 
Wright, and Speaker — 41. 

So the motion was disagreed to by an even vote. Had 
9 



66 I.OCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

Mr. Eyler, who voted for the bill, voted to reconsider, 
the motion would have prevailed. 

And thus closed one of the most earnest contests for the 
right that was ever waged in the Legislative Halls at 
Columbus. 



CHAPTER Xni. 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 



'^T^HE following is a stenographic report of the proceed- 
^ ings in the House, including the speeches made there- 
on, the first day of the debate. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

Tuesday, March ii, 1849— ii o'clock A. M. 

House Bill No. 619, by Mr. Quinby, being the special 
order for this hour, was read the third time, and sun- 
dry amendments of the phraseology thereof made on motion 
of the author. 

MR. BOHL— Mr. Speaker, I move to refer the bill to 
a select committee of one, with instructions to amend as 
follows : In line one, section one, insert, after the word 
"That" as follows : '*in all counties having a population 
of 21,915, and no more or less, by the last Federal cen- 
sus." 

Mr. Speaker, I would simply state to the House that if 
that amendment passes, which I think it ought, this bill 
will apply to the gentleman's county, Clinton. There is 
doubt in the minds of persons as to the operation of this 
law, and whether it would be wholesome. I for one am 
satisfied that this bill ought to pass, and have a trial in 
Clinton county, and if it be satisfactory there, the law can 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 6/ 

be extended, afterwards, to other parts of the State. I 
hope the amendment will prevail. 

MR. ALEXANDER— I hope it will not prevail, for 
the reason that I think it would not only be good for the 
residents of Mr. Quinby's county, but for all the counties 
of the State. I don't want to restrict it in that kind 
of a way, but want the benefits so extended, that it 
may apply to the gentleman's own county (Washington), 
from which so many petitions have come in asking for the 
enactment of this law. I hope the amendment will be 
voted down, and that the vote may be taken on the bill 
as it is. 

Mr. QUINBY— Mr. Speaker, I hope the amendment 
will not prevail. When the vote is taken upon this meas- 
ure, I hope it will be taken on the bill as it was intro- 
duced, as it came from the committee, as it has been read 
in your hearing to-day. 

If this amendment were to prevail, there might be mem- 
bers who would vote for the bill as amended, who 
would not otherwise vote for it. I should not be sur- 
prised if that were so. But on the other hand, if the 
amendment be voted down, as I hope it may, I am quite 
certain there are those w^ho would vote for it, who would 
not vote for it, if amended. I do not want the bill emas- 
culated in that manner. I hope the friends of the bill will 
stand by me, and vote down this amendment. 

Mr. Speaker, as the rules of the House permit a general 
discussion of the merits of a bill, pending an amendment, 
I think this is as favorable a time to discuss, somewhat, the 
features and provisions of the bill, as at any other stage of 
the proceedings that may take place thereon, in the way of 
this amendment, or any other that may be offered. 

This bill is right, in the main, or, it is wrong. 
I think there can be no middle ground to occupy. 
And it is for the members of this House to make up their 
minds, if they have not already done so, whether or not, 



68 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

this measure is a just and equitable one. And if any one 
concludes in his own mind that it is, I think that it is 
his duty, as a Representative upon the floor of this House, 
from whatsoever county he may come, his duty as a rep- 
resentative of the people of that county, and of this great 
State of Ohio, to vote for it. I hope that each one will 
ask himself as to the merits of it, and that he will 
respond in a conscientious way by his vote. If the bill is 
right, it is the duty of this Legislature to pass it, as it 
would any other measuse that may come before it, for the 
interests of the people of the State. 

I want to say to the gentlemen upon the floor of this 
House, that if it be wrong, that I should be glad for any 
one to point out wherein it is improper, or wherein its 
weakness lies. I say that the people of the State, voting 
at their township elections, or any other election, for that 
matter, have a right to vote upon this question of the sale 
of liquors. I might say that it is an inalienable right, in 
the sense that it should not be denied to them. This right 
of ballot is one that is sacred and dear to every elec- 
tor in the state. Who will deny it ? Can there be any 
doubt that the people of the state desire to get a vote 
on this question? Why, for nearly two months, there 
have been petitions coming up from the people, day after 
day, asking for the passage of this measure ; petitions that 
are sent in from all parts of the State almost, in a very 
flood. 

Nearly every county has been respr^sented here in the 
way of petitions, asking its passage. It has been shown 
by them, that no measure that has ever been before the Gen- 
eral Assembly of this State, has awakened such a favorable 
feeling in the minds and hearts of the people, as this one. 
I ask any gentleman sitting in this House as a member of 
this General Assembly, or any one who has knowledge of 
the history of any former General Assembly, when, in the 
"whole history of legislation in this State, was there such a 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 69 . 

spontaneous, universally favorable expression from the 
people — the people for whom we are here to legislate, in 
favor of any proposition. When was it ? And if the peo- 
ple are in favor of it, it is our duty to enact it into a law. 
But, Mr. Speaker, let me allude for a short time to the 
counties that have been asking for the passage of this bill 
by the petitions of their people. Let me state something 
about the number. Taking in my hand a list, not quite 
complete perhaps, in that it does not represent in every 
instance the number from each county, inasmuch as I 
have taken down the numbers from the petitions read at 
the Clerk's desk, and may have sometimes imperfectly 
heard the number announced, I find that Adams county, 
named in honor of the second President of the United 
States, has largely petitioned for it ; I find that Athens has 
sent in six petitions for it signed by over 500 of her people ; 
I find that Ashtabula of Indian name, but who has given 
the people of Ohio, and the Nation, some illustrious men, 
has sent in over 1,900 names asking its passage. I want 
to ask the gentleman from that county, when did the 
people of that county, ever petition so largely for a meas- 
ure? Knowing him as I do, I feel he will obey their voices, 
for vox populi vox dei. Then I come to Ashland, and if I 
mistake not there are 700 from there, and I want to ask the 
member from that county what his bounden duty is, as a 
Representative on this floor, in casting his vote upon this 
measure. Has he ever been instructed by such a number 
of his people before as to how he shall vote on a measure? 
I think not. Passing by Allen, I come to Belmont, with 
her fine mountains, as her name implies, but with a sturdy 
honest people, who have sent up here i, 100 names asking 
for it. Besides, in a public meeting held in that county a 
few weeks ago, the members from that county were in- 
structed to vote for the bill, and, if I mistake not, the 
instructions will be obeyed to the letter. Then Butler, named 
for an officer of Revolutionary fame, not last in petition- 



70 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

ing, nor least in the number of her petititioners. Her 
people have responded nobly, and sent up over 500 names. 
And it would not surprise me a great deal to see the hon- 
orable Speaker of this House come down upon the floor 
and advocate the passage of this bill, and cast his vote for 
it, having been instructed, as he has, by so many voters 
of his county so to do. Then there is Brown county, 
whose Representative is absent from his seat to-day, I am 
sorry to say. She has petitioned. Then comes Craw- 
ford county. It rolls up in one single petition the names 
of 600 of its citizens, and I suppose that one of the high- 
est and greatest privileges ever falling to the lot of the 
member from that county (Mr. Meuser), and one of the 
pleasantest duties, will be discharged by him, shortly, in 
recording his vote in behalf of this act. And then there 
is Clinton county, ever steadfast and true for the right, 
with nineteen petitions, aggregating over 1,400 names, 
signed without regard to party prediliction or prejudices. 
The people of Clinton, named in honor of a former Vice 
President, have responded nobly. I feel that it is a great 
honor to represent such a constituency, and while I stand 
here as their representative, I trust I shall never falter or 
hesitate in the discharge of my duty, or prove recreant to 
the trust committed to my keeping. From one of the 
townships of that county, a township having a large Dem- 
ocratic majority, came a petition the other day with the 
names of 176 voters, being two-thirds of the voting pop- 
ulation, and heading the list is the name of a gentleman 
prominent as a party leader therein. Then there is her 
next door neighbor, Clermont, with a list of near 500 
names. I am sorry that the member from that county is 
not in his seat this day, and that he thereby will not have 
his vote recorded for this measure, as he has been in- 
structed, and as I know her people desire he should. 
Then there is noble Columbiana, represented on the floor 
of this house by two very worthy gentlemen (Messrs. 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. J I 

Kerr and Boyce), who, I am almost sure, will vote in 
accordance with the instructions of their constituency. 
Then there is Champaign with 750; Coshocton, 600; Car- 
roll, 300 ; Delaware, nearly 300. Then we have Darke 
county over there next the Indiana line, represented by 
my friend, the same in name, but not he of Hostetter 
Stomach Bitters notoriety. [Laughter.] She sends up a 
list of 300 names. Then there is Erie on the lake, and 
Fayette, named for LaFayette, the friend of Ameri- 
can liberty, they both send up a goodly list. And here 
is Franklin county, here in the central part of the 
State, with over 300 petitioners, beside what came 
in this morning, and there was not less than 300 of 
them. Then Gallia and Geauga, then Greene and 
Guernsey, with a list of about 700 each ; then Hardin, 
Harrison and Huron, the latter two with over i, 100 each ; 
then there is Highland, the home of the Crusaders, the 
Gibralter of the Temperance cause, with her 4, 500 names, 
on fifty petitions, united in one, where the political par- 
ties are nearly evenly balanced, and where the petitions 
are signed irrespective of party. Then there are Jackson 
and Jefferson, both named for Presidents of our Republic, 
they each send up long Hsts ; then Knox with 700 ; and 
Lake and Lawrence, and Licking with her 1,300, nearly 
all voters. And then Logan; then Lorain with 1,200; 
then Lucas ; then Madison and Marion, with over 500 
each ; then Medina and Miami, with 350 each; Meigs and 
Monroe, with over 100 each ; Montgomery with 700 ; then 
Morgan with 1,136; Morrow, 347 ; Muskingum, with but 
one petition ; then Noble, worthy of her name, with nearly 
800. 

MR. ACHAUER — How many petitioners' names came 
up from my county? (Muskingum.) 

MR. QUINBY— I said, I think, that there had been 
one petition from there ; am I correct ? 

MR. ACHAUER— I don't know. 



72 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

MR. QUINBY— The member from Muskingum says 
he does not know. Well, all I have to say is that he 
ought to know. Then there is Ottawa ; and Perry, 424 
and signed, too, without respect to party — as I understand 
the member from that county to say. Then Preble with 
478 ; Then Pickaway ; then Ross ; then Richland county. 

MR. VAN CLEAF— Will the gentleman state the num- 
ber from Pickaway county ? 

MR. QUINBY— There has been one only, that I know 
of, introduced from that county. The number of signers 
I don't now remember. 

MR. VAN CLEAF— It was signed by about thirty- 
five. 

MR. QUINBY— Richland county, 108; Shelby, 746; 
Stark county 520 odd ; Summit 475 ; 

A MEMBER— How many voters? 

MR. QUINBY — I don't know how many voters, and I 
will not say. I wish the gentleman would state, if he 
knows. Trumbull county 500, most all voters. 

MR. FORSYTHE— How many did you say from Har- 
rison county? 

MR. QUINBY — Harrison county, iioo at least. 

MR. FORSYTHE— Well, there are over 1300. 

MR. QUINBY — The gentleman says there are over 
1300 from Harrison county. I was not stating these, as 
the full number. I wanted to keep on the safe side. I 
said at the beginning, I might not have each county fully 
and accurately stated. 

Union county nearly 600, Warren county 1300, and 
over, Williams county, the extreme north-west portion of 
the State, nearly 500, and last in the list, Washington 
county, named for the ''Father of his Country," 900 and 
over. 

MR. BOHL — I desire to ask the gentleman how many 
among these 900 are voters ? 

MR. QUINBY — I suppose the gentleman from Wash- 



' THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 73 

ington knows the number of voters better than I do ; he 
ought to at least. I can say that they are most all voters, 
as I now remember. I would say right here, in regard to 
this, before I proceed further, that these petitions, most all of 
them have printed headings, to be signed by voters. Some 
may be written differently from that, but most are in that 
way. I think that out of 40,000 petitioners for the passage 
of this bill, there are not to exceed 1000 of them that are 
women, or other than voters. That is my estimate of 
them. Not but that a woman has the same right to peti- 
tion as a man, but I simply state that as a fact in this case 
as I understand the facts. I think this long list of peti- 
tioners from the counties I have mentioned, ought to con_ 
vince every member of this House, that the people are for 
this bill ; that they demand it ; that they expect it to pass 
and become a law. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

THE DEBATE ON THE BILL— SPEECH OF MR. QUINBY CONTINUED. 

MR. SPEAKER, I might say further that so far as my 
observation has extended in the way of notices that 
have been given the bill by the newspapers, it has been 
favorably noticed by nearly all of those that have given it 
any mention. I know it has had high compliments paid 
it by many of the papers throughout the State, and I do 
not except the Cleveland nor Cincinnati papers. I do not 
pretend that I have seen all that may have been said, how- 
ever — 

MR. POE — I want to ask how many petitioners' names 
have come from Cuyahoga county? 

MR. QUINBY— Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe I don't 
know of any petitions from Cuyahoga, having been intro- 
duced in the House, nor do I know how many petitions 

10 



74 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

the gentleman from Cuyahoga may have in the capacious 
pockets of that coat tail of his [laughter]; I suppose 
though, he has none, or he would have presented them. 

Mj-. MEUSER— Will the gentleman from CHnton give 
way for a question ? 

MR. QUINBY— I don't wish to be interrupted now. 
The gentleman will have an opportunity soon, and I hope 
he will not shrink from it, to express himself fully on this 
bill, and hope he will do so. If he has a question to ask me, 
however, I will answer it if I can. I am willing to enlight- 
en him ! 

MR. MEUSER — Yes, well I am certainly very much 
obliged to the gentleman for his courtesy and considera- 
tion, but I would like to know if the gentleman is not 
apprehensive that he is endangering the passage of his bill ? 
Mr. QUINBY — Now, that is a very heroi-comic kind of 
a question, for the gentleman from Crawford to ask ! I 
fancy I am not. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the 
members upon this floor to another fact ; a fact, almost 
unparalleled in the history of legislation in this State; at 
least so, so far as my observation has extended, especially 
where a measure was designed to have operation through- 
out the whole State ; and that remarkable fact is, that 
there has not been a single remonstrance presented against 
it, from any county in the State. There was a remon- 
strance from the Brewer's Convention in Cincinnati against 
the Eylar bill. But not one against this. If I am wrong, I 
should be glad for any member to correct me. Now, that 
is an extraordinary fact, and it goes to show how popular 
the measure is with the people. 

MR. THORPE— If the gentleman desires to be cor- 
rected, I will correct him in this respect. A remonstrance 
has been sent in here signed by the Saloon Keepers' Asso- 
ciation of the State. 

MR. QUINBY — If so, it has escaped my attention. I 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 75 

think the gentleman from Ashtabula must be mistaken. 
The fact of none having been presented by the people 
shows that the hearts of the people are with this measure, 
that they desire the bill to become a law, and this, with 
singular unanimity. 

THE SPEAKER— (From the chair.) Will the gentle- 
man yield a moment to indulge the chair ? The gentle- 
man from Ashtabula reminds the speaker that he has in 
his pocket the remonstrance from the Ohio Liquor Dealers' 
Protective Association, which the gentleman from CHnton 
will no doubt grant leave to present to the House. It 
was in the possession of the Speaker, and should have 
been presented before, but was forgotten. Of course it is 
the duty of the Speaker to present it to the House. 

MR. QUINBY— By whom is it signed ? 

THE SPEAKER^Signed by the Secretary of that as- 
sociation. 

MR. QUINBY— Well, let it be presented, and read by 
the Clerk. 

[This remonstrance was then read. It will be found, 
printed in full at the close of the speeches herein.] 

Mr. Speaker, now that the remonstrance has been pre- 
sented, I will proceed. I was about to give some reasons 
why the people are so unanimously in favor of this mea- 
sure — of an act of this kind. I say that it is because they 
are to be benefitted by it ; that they will be affected by it 
for the better. They are for it, because it can be enforced 
at home. It permits suit to be brought in the township 
where the violation occurs, without going to the county 
seat, and going before a grand jury to procure an indict- 
ment, and afterwards going again, at the end of m.onths, 
to the county seat, at great inconvenience and expense to 
appear as witnesses in the case. What objection can there 
be to enforcing it at home, where the witnesses can be 
easily procured ? 
' Again, the prosecutions would be of a civil nature, it 



"J^ LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

would be a civil case. And when the evidence would be 
given to the jury, if a jury were demanded, the instruction 
would not be, that they should find the defendant guilty, 
beyond a reasonable doubt, but that they were only re- 
quired to find on a fair preponderance of testimony. That 
would make quite a difference in regard to prosecutions. 
This provision tends largely to make it popular, in my 
judgment. 

But some will say we have sufficient laws already, if en- 
forced. I say not. The people do not say so. They 
understand the difficulty with which the liquor laws are 
enforced. They know that they are prescribed, hedged 
in, as it were. In order to commence the suit there must 
be, first an affidavit, filed before some Justice of the Peace, 
or Mayor, and prior to doing so, the party prosecuting 
must give security for costs, if the State fails in the prose- 
cution. If the defendant be bound over, there must be 
an indictment in the Court of Common Pleas. The find- 
ing of indictments or the failure to find, is largely influ- 
enced, as perhaps will be admitted, by the conduct and 
influence of the Prosecuting Attorney. He is admitted to 
the grand jury room by virtue of law, and is counseled 
with and advised with by the grand jury, although having 
no vote in the finding of an indictment. 

Another reason why the people are demanding local 
option is, that in the townships of the State, outside of vil- 
lages and cities, they have no police officers, no marshals, 
none but a single constable to preserve order in the 
township. Riot and revelry may run rampant ; the noise 
and disturbance, the cursing and blasphemy of the mad- 
dened inebriate may make night hideous, and drive slum- 
ber and repose from the inhabitants, and yet there is no re- 
lief, no protection by any officer of the law, for a constable 
is not empowered with ubiquity. How often it is that 
murders are committed, assaults made, indignities offered! 
A saloon may be kept open all night, they may sell ale, 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 'JJ 

beer, and wine at any hour day or night without stint, or 
hindrance ; they may make night dreaded by those peace- 
fully inclined, and yet there is no redress. 

It is the duty of every citizen of the State to so conduct 
himself in his business relations with his fellow-men, in his 
associations in society, that he will not injure or molest 
others in the slightest, and it is this transgression of that 
rule by the liquor dealers, of which the people complain. 
They feel that the saloon keepers in these townships and 
villages have been for years, and still are waging an ag- 
gressive warfare in this respect that depreciates the proper- 
ty of the citizens, and renders life itself unsafe. 

They believe that if the question of the sale of liquors be 
left to the people of a township, that society will relieve 
itself of this incubus, and thereby get rid of this terrible night- 
mare of dread that is brooding over it. By the ballot, 
they will give notice to the saloon keeper, to his backers 
and abettors, that they want no saloons amongst them ; they 
propose to serve notice that this iniquity must stop, that 
this aggressive movement against good morals and order 
must cease. 

They want to correct in a peaceable way, what they 
have regarded heretofore and what they now believe to be, 
a trespass upon their rights as citizens. This redress they 
demand, and expect to receive. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, another thought : other States have 
had laws somewhat similar to this. I understand that the 
question of the license or non-license of saloons in Ken- 
tucky, is there left to the vote of the people of the town- 
ships or counties, and that the law is well enforced there. 
They have a local option law in some parts of Maryland, 
and New Jersey. They had a somewhat similar law in 
Pennsylvania. I have it before me now, and should read it 
but for want of time. 

MR. BLOOM— I would state to the gentleman that it 
has been repealed. 



78 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

MR. QUINBY— Yes, but they are agitating the ques- 
tion again. They are in favor of giving it a further trial 
and claim that it was only repealed at the behests of the 
Liquor Dealers' Association. But it was a question of 
license or no license there — different from the one now 
proposed here. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to extend my re- 
marks to any great length. But I want to say that I 
believe it the bounden duty of this House to pass this 
bill, that it may go to the Senate and receive the atten- 
tion of that branch of this General Assembly. I believe 
that it ought not to be made a party question. It ought 
to be put above party politics or influence. I would put 
it on a higher level than that. I hope no effort will be 
made to drag it into any such arena. 

MR. POE — I would like to ask the gentleman if we 
have not already had a local option law in Ohio ? 

MR. QUINBY— Mr. Speaker, in answer, I will say that 
we have not had a general local option law in the State of 
Ohio, not in the sense that it was left for the people to 
vote upon. There was authority, under section 199, para- 
graph 6, in the Municipal Code, delegated to the village 
and city councils, throughout the State, to pass ordinances 
prohibiting the keeping of ale, beer and porter houses and 
shops, and place of open and notorious resort for tippling 
and intemperance. But these ordinances did not apply to 
intoxicating liquors. That enactment is a provision of the 
Municipal Code, as the gentleman from Cuyohoga, Mr. 
Poe, very well knows, and never did apply to any town- 
ships. There was, under the old constitution, power given 
to certain townships in the State to vote on the question 
of license. There never was a law restricting the sale, in 
any sense of beer, ale and wine in the townships, outside 
of Municipal Corporations. 

I want to read a few brief extracts from among the many 
letters I have received from different portions of the State, 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 79 

endorsing this bill ; many from persons I never met, nor 
never shall I suppose, but all conveying words of en- 
couragement. 

One says : ' ' The bill is so reasonable in its provisions, 
and just what the Constitution authorizes the Legislature 
to do, in the sale of intoxicating liquors, that there ought 
not be a single vote against it on either side of the House." 

Another says : " I believe your bill is the most popular 
one ever offered to the Legislature of this State ; and if you 
desire more petitioners, we will shower you under with 
them." 

Again, a gentleman writing from Knox county, says : 

''Your bill is just what is needed. Work for it, fight 
for it. You have an army of friends over the State, that 
you have never seen, and perhaps, never will. We wish 
you all success." 

Here is another letter from a gentleman in Brown coun- 
ty. He says : 

''Tell the boys, for me, every last one of them, to vote 
for local option. Tell them, for God's sake, to give us 
the bill, and all good people will call them blessed." 

Here is a letter from Ashtabula county, the home of 
Joshua Giddings, in his Hfe time : 

" Our Murphy Club sends greeting. We count 1,400 
strong. We have secured the most of the voters for local 
option. Thousands are praying for the success of your 
bill." 

Another, from an old gentleman, formerly a member of 
the Senate, residing at New Lisbon, Ohio, who says : 

" I do hope your local option bill will be speedily passed 
by the Legislature, so that the temperance question may 
be taken out of politics at our general election and commit- 
ted to the voters of the State at the township elections in 
April, to be decided as the majority wish. Both the friends 
and foes of temperance ought to be satisfied with that dis- 
position of the question." 

But why continue the list. These are but fair samples 



80 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

of the many received by me. Why, but yesterday I 
received the following, from a highly respected lady, a 
church member, residing in Licking county. Its touching 
appeal ought to endue with enthusiasm the most indiffer- 
ent, nerve to heroic action and determination the faltering, 
and mollify the opposition to the passage of this bill from 
whatever source it may come : 

*' At our meeting this Sunday afternoon, we gave notice 
that a prayer meeting would commence on Tuesday at ten 
o'clock, to last one hour and a half in behalf of the suc- 
cess of your local option bill, and may God grant its pass- 
age. Postal cards naming this hour, as an hour of prayer 
for your bill, will be sent to our surrounding towns." 

Shall we not heed those prayers, this day made by these 
Christian people. Unless your hearts be like adamant they 
must soften at such words as these. 

These are some of the expressions coming to me. I 
might say I receive dozens per day ; hundreds of letters, 
all bearing the same kind of tone and expression, showing 
that the people are in earnest in demanding local option 
in Ohio. 

Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the House longer by en- 
tering into any argument to show the gigantic evils of in- 
temperance. They are known to you all. They surround 
you on every side. Turn wherever we may, our eyes be- 
hold the sight. Reeling, tottering, maudlin men, with 
their bleared watery eyes, tinted noses and polluted breath. 
Wives in poverty, hunger and despair, with hot burning 
tears coursing down their haggard and wan faces ; the 
health bloom faded from their cheeks, whose husbands 
at the alter promised, yes faithfully promised to love, hon- 
or and protect. Children in rags crying for bread, and 
growing up without nurture, without love, without home, 
without a single ray of sunshine in their hearts, sooner or 
later to become the inmates of some of our benevolent or 
penal institutions, and the recipients of the charities of the 
State. 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 51 

Yes, it makes thousands of paupers to fill our alms- 
houses, it fills our prisons and houses of reformation which 
we are compelled to build and support. Go to the appro- 
priation bills passed last year ; go to those pending now, 
and count up if you please, the hundreds of thousands of 
dollars that are taken to support these institutions. Go 
to the penitentiary and ask those behind the prison bars 
there, shut out from the world, what brought them there. 
Intemperance would be the answer, in four cases out of 
five. With deaths from violence, with manslaughter and 
murders, by reason of the influence of strong drink, we 
are all familiar. Scarcely a day passes, but that the pa- 
pers bring us one or more accounts of bloodshed caused 
by it. Every community, almost, has witnessed them. 
They have occurred here in this city. Within a short dis- 
tance from these legislative halls, in the heart of this city, 
scarce two years have passed, since a man, maddened by liq- 
uor, precipitated himself from the fourth story window of 
a principal hotel, to the pavement below. Another, 
shortly after, walked into the Scioto river, within almost 
a stone's throw of the same hotel, and was drowned. And 
over in the State's prison there, is a man who, while 
under the influence of strong drink, killed his own son, 
almost within the shadow of the walls of the peniten- 
tiary, and who to-day looks out of a felon's cell, across 
the street to the door yard of his home near the 
bank of the river, and sees his children at play. But why 
continue the catalogue of crime ? 

Mr. Speaker, before closing, I wish to pay a tribute of 
respect to the women of Ohio, for the interest they have 
manifested in behalf of the success of this measure. And 
especially do I thank the Women's Christian Temperance 
Union for the support that they have given it ; and for 
their resolutions adopted at their different meetings in the 
state, expressive of their great desire for the success of this 
bill, and for their kind words of greeting and encourage- 

II . 



82 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

ment. Much of the sorrow, sufifering, shame, poverty, 
and degradation resulting from the sale of intoxicating liq- 
uors, fall upon them. It is a part of woman's mission, to 
aid sufifering humanity. Ever ready, ever constant, ever 
sympathetic, the appeals from the sufferers from this curse 
do not fall unheeded upon her ears. May the choicest 
blessings of this life, and eternal happiness in the life to 
come, be enjoyed by the noble, self-sacrificing. Christian 
women of Ohio ! We know that their prayers have been 
ascending to high heaven, this day, for the passage of this 
measure. Will not the conciousness of this, so influence 
your minds, and soften your hearts, you men of Ohio, 
that this measure shall find favor with you ? 



CHAPTER XV. 

THE DEBATE ON THE BILL CONTINUED. SPEECHES OF MESSRS. 
HARDY AND TOWNSEND. 

MR. OGLEVEE— Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask 
the House at this time, to suspend the rules, in 
order that I may introduce a petition to the House on 
this subject, that has been sent to me by the citizens of 
my county by expressage. 

Leave was granted, and the petition of J. B. Raffensper- 
ger and 4227 citizens of Clarke county, praying for local 
option legislation in regard to the sale of intoxicating 
liquors, was read at the clerk's desk and referred to 
the Committee of the Whole House. 

Like leave was granted to Mr. Herrick, who presented 
the petition of 620 citizens of Lorain county, praying for 
the passage of House Bill 619, by Mr. Quinby, which was 
referred to the same committee. 

THE SPEAKER — The question is now upon referring 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE, 83 

the bill to a select committee of one, with instructions to 
amend. 

MR. HARDY of Defiance county :— Mr. Speaker, I 
am in hopes this motion to refer will prevail. It is cer- 
tainly in accordance with the spirit of the bill, itself, and 
in accordance with the idea of local option. Now, there 
are, probably, some other counties that have petitioned 
for this bill, as well as the county of Clinton, which the 
gentleman, the author of this bill represents ; and, if nec- 
essary, it may be well enough to allow them to be incor- 
porated into the bill ; but for this bill to be passed for the 
entire State of Ohio, is certainly very wrong. There are 
some counties that have not asked for the bill ; havn't 
asked for any law of the kind. I know of a number. I 
think you will find no petition from the county that I rep- 
resent. You will find no petition, I think, from the coun- 
ty of Henry. There are a number of counties that have not 
desired that there shall be such a law. Now, I am willing 
that the gentleman's bill shall be tried on, in his county. 

MR. ALEXANDER— I would Kke to say to the gentle- 
man that if there are no persons in the county of Defiance 
that want the operations of this law extended to them, 
certainly there will be no vote taken in those townships 
for it, and I want to ask the member from Defiance if he 
would not like to give it to other counties, so that all who 
do want it may get the benefit of a good thing ? 

MR. HARDY— Mr. Speaker, if any other county 
wants it, I certainly have no objections ; but those that do 
not want it, should not have it forced upon them. But 
I would rather be in favor of having it tried in the county 
of Clinton ; something similar to the way some family in 
the West did. They had got pretty well run down, not 
much to eat, and they had to go through the fields and 
gather vegetables to eat. When they had gathered a lot, 
not knowing just whether some of the kinds might not 
be poisonous, there was one boy by the name of *' Dick," 



84 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

they would feed him on it, and watch the result. If it 
worked all right with him, they would eat of it ; if other- 
wise, they wouldn't. [Laughter] Well now, if Clinton 
county works well with this bill, the rest of the counties 
will take it in this way. We may spare them enough, but 
let us try a little at a time. 

MR. SULLIVAN, of Miami— If I read the bill right, 
I find it is not made obligatory upon any thirty electors of 
any township to petition the township trustees to have 
this law go into operation in the township. 

MR. HARDY— Oh, Mr. Speaker, so far as that is con- 
cerned, if there is the number of thirty — I believe it is — 
found in the township, that want an election, this thirty 
may annoy the township every year, continually. There 
is hardly a township of any considerable size but what 
there are thirty fanatics in it, anyhow, who can combine 
together. There is another question in this bill that annoys 
me some, and I am considered a temperate man, myself. 
I believe that water can sometimes be used for other pur- 
poses beside that of navigation. Now, this in section 
four, "If the majority of tickets voted at such election 
shall be for the sale of intoxicating liquors, beer, ale and 
wine ; then it shall be lawful to sell intoxicating liquors, 
beer, ale and wine, subject to such restrictions, etc." 
Now there is provision for that, and it is very doubtful, in 
my mind, and possibly might be doubtful in the minds of 
some judges in criminal cases, whether the laws in regard 
to the sale of intoxicating hquors is not repealed by im- 
plication. That is a very doubtful bill, taking it all to- 
gether, gentlemen, and while we may make it safer by a 
partial application of it, I think that we can see that 
it is fraught with a good deal of danger. But, for my 
part, I would rather not see the bill even go to that coun- 
ty. But I am willing that the gentleman should try it 
there, if he wishes, and if he will so amend it, I will vote 
for the bill. 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 85 

MR. TOWNSEND— Mr. Speaker, I didn't desire, at 
this time, to say anything about this measure, but it is 
very evident, that if this amendment prevails, the measure 
is virtually lost. We will look at it just as it is. And 
therefore, I hope the House will indulge me for a few 
minutes. I shall not occupy time in talking about a great 
deal that results from the abuse of intoxicating drinks. It 
is unnecessary for me to say that, which you all know, 
that some two-thirds of the expenses of all criminal pros- 
ecutions in Ohio may be traced to crimes committed by 
men, through the influence of drink. It is unnecessary 
for me to say to you that out of the 1,650 inmates of the 
Ohio Penitentiary, more than two out of three, by their own 
testimony, and by the evidence in the Courts, are there 
through the influence of intoxicating drinks. It is unnec- 
essary for me to say that which you all know, that the 
alms houses, and the destitution of Ohio, that must be 
supported from the pockets of the people, and from the 
industry of the people, is brought about by the sale of in- 
toxicating drinks. I will only repeat what one of the 
greatest minds of England, but a short time before his 
death, said of the English people, that more than three- 
fourths of all the criminal expenses in England, Ireland, 
Scotland, and Wales, were directly attributable to the sale 
of intoxicating drinks. 

It is unnecessary for me to say that which you all know, 
that the history of the past world is full of the wreck of 
governments that have risen, because of intoxication 
among the leaders and the masses I need not say to you 
that no vandal would have ever set foot in Rome but for 
the intoxication of a patrician mob. I need not say to you 
that the Ancient Grecian States would not have lost their 
liberty, but for intemperance. I need not say to you, that 
all the terrible plagues and calamities of the middle ages, 
in Europe, grew from this evil. I will say, with Abraham 
Lincoln, that "A country cannot live half slave and 



86 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

half free," half drunk and half sober. We may make 
up our minds that, in the light of legislation, this ques- 
tion is irrepressible. In some way or other, such legis- 
lation as wisdom and experience, and moderation dic- 
tate, will take place. It cannot be stayed. As science, 
virtue, integrity, and political economy advance, so this 
question will rise higher and higher. It will not down. 

The ghosts of its wrongs will stand up and look every 
Legislator in these United States in the face These stu- 
pendous burdens that it imposes upon the wealth and in- 
dustry of the commonwealth are continual arguments, and 
we cannot escape them. Now, as wise men, looking back 
at the experience of the past, and hearing the voice of the 
present, what ought we to do ? That is the question. 
Why, there is a voice on it, now hardly ceased its echo in 
this hall, from Clarke county, of over 4,000 people ; and 
although it was a whisper, it is louder than thunder ! In 
the face of these petitions, nearly all voters — I repeat it, 
nearly all voters, the nearly 50,000 persons asking for this 
measure — I say, in the face of that voice, it is the absence 
of wisdom to refuse to answer : the presence of wisdom to 
answer. For the right to petition, and the right to be 
heard in answer to petitions, is a right that cannot be dis- 
regarded. I have here before me, an editorial written by 
one of the best Democratic editors that I know of in the 
country ; and not only that man, but the press of both 
parties have echoed, and are still echoing these Sentiments, 
all over Ohio, and ask upon the broad, philosophical 
grounds of home rule and home government ; the 
Democracy of the locaHty, the Republicanism, demand 
the right of government by home sentiment, that 
shall prevail in this law that is proposed. What is this 
measure that is proposed ? I ask you, in its philosophic 
light ; what is this measure that is proposed ? It is nothing 
more and nothing less than this : That while the laws of 
Ohio restrain people in their several localities from exer- 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 8/ 

cising their willin this particular, they ask to take away that 
barrier, and permit them at home, to exercise their own 
sentiments, and that is the purest and simplest home gov- 
ernment, home rule. Democracy, Republicanism, if you 
please, that can be found. It is self-government in its es- 
sence. If one takes up the history of Ireland since the be- 
ginning of this century, and listens to the cry of that people 
against the EngHsh, he will find that it all arose out of this, 
that England took away their parliament, and merged it 
into the English parliament, and refused to allow them to 
govern themselves at home, grindmg the rights and privi- 
leges of the Irish people to powder, devouring their sub- 
stance, and causing the land to be one vast hot-bed of dis- 
content. The same liberty is asked for here, by free citi- 
zens of the State of Ohio. 

They ask nothing, in this bill but to be permitted to ex- 
ercise the resident sentiment as to what they will do in 
this matter. Each township asks for itself, that if the 
sentiment in that township is adverse to the sale of intoxi- 
cating liquors, as a beverage, then that sentiment shall 
prevail. And it awards to every township in the State of 
Ohio the right to say ''no," and it is, therefore, upon the 
broad ground of the enalienable right of the citizen to gov- 
ern himself that I plant the wisdom of this measure. 

And I say to you, and I wish it distinctly to be under- 
stood, that whoever disregards it upon this floor, must 
suffer in his own home locality, and he will suffer in the 
sentiment and interests of his party, if he makes a party 
measure of it and takes that position. I hope that this 
question will mount higher than party, and that we shall 
rise to meet the question upon the basis of its own merit, 
and look at it in the Hght of excellence and statesmanship. 

And now I ask this question, that whenever. any town- 
ships of any county are adverse to the exercise of this law, 
they have only to stand up in their own majesty and say 
they will not have it ; is not that right ? It forces upon 



I 



88 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

no community, except it be the voice of the community 
for allegiance to it, to obey it. Who will want to go home 
to his constituents and say that '' when that measure was 
offered in the Ohio Legislature, that gave to my people 
the right to exercise their own sovereign will in their own 
locality, I said ''no ?" 

Reading from the Athens Journal of last week, I find 
this : "The Columbus correspondents of the daily press 
say that in all probability that body will not dare assume 
the responsibility of legislating against the liquor traffic 
on the eve of the most important state elections ever 
held in Ohio." *' We trust that these correspondents are 
mistaken in their estimate of the nerve of our solons at 
Columbus. The attempt by any dominant party to shirk 
a plain duty, is a cowardice which has never, in the politi- 
cal history of any country, resulted but in subsequent dis- 
aster and defeat." 

And now I want to lay down this axiom, that any mem- 
ber who leaves his desk to avoid voting, when the vote is 
a material one, or even not a material one, will, in the 
future, find the ghost of that cowardice rising up against 
him. 

And now, representing the people, when the people 
ask to have awarded to them these rights, which the legis- 
lature could never have except it were transferred "from 
the people, and we say **no," the people will hold us 
individually responsible, you may rest assured of that ; 
and it is only a question of time when that responsibility 
will be made manifest. '*Itis not by an appeal to our 
grosser natures or appetites, but to the higher and nobler 
impulses of the race that true party supremacy is founded 
* as upon a rock.' " 

In the history of the past, no party has had vitality, ex- 
cept when they legislated upon the very questions enun- 
ciated here. And it is when they take into consideration 
the real welfare of the people, and their real wishes, dis- 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 89 

regarding all impulses of personal motives, that they suc- 
ceed. 

** Even as a party measure, we believe the passage of 
this bill would strengthen the Democracy throughout the 
State, to say nothing of the moral results which would 
certainly be beyond computation." 

" We hope the hour has now come when the citizens of 
a community will be permitted to take this question of 
liquor or no liquor into their own hands, and to decide it 
as seems to them proper. And if the present Legislature 
of Ohio fails to afford our people this privilege, it will, in 
our judgment, have committed a very grave, if not an un- 
pardonable, error." 

Now, gentlemen, I am not standing upon this floor 
asking that this amendment go down upon the bare 
ground of any sentiment that I may have, one way or the 
other, but I am asking upon the high ground that I be- 
lieve that the communities themselves ought to have the 
right which they ask for, and the wisdom and propriety 
of exercising that right will devolve upon them. Not a 
community in the State of Ohio that does not desire to 
restrict or abridge the sale of intoxicating liquors, is com- 
pelled by this measure to do so. R is but permissive. 
The people have come in here and by petitions, signed by 
such number as never before were presented to this House, 
have asked to be permitted, if you please, to regulate a 
traffic concerning which there is great complaint, in their 
own localities ; and the simple question is, whether you 
will permit them, for there is no personal proposition in- 
volved here. 

And I ask you whether you believe that you can go 
home and look your constituents in the face, and say that, 
when those same voters asked of you, permission to reg- 
ulate this matter, you said '*no, " and know that in many 
parts of the state, if not in the aggregate, you have the 
dis-approbation of the people? For I can say here, that 

12 



90 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

those who have petitioned are not of one party, they are 
of all parties, and in the aggregate, there are but few 
women and children among the petitioners. Nearly all of 
them are voters. A few days since, I received petitions, 
and those that were voters, were marked, and I found that 
about one in fifteen of all those petitioning, were not vo- 
ters ; or, nearly every one upon those petitions exercised 
the elective franchise. 

Now, I desire not to detain the House. I have only to 
say that if this amendment prevails, it is the end of the 
bill, substantially, because it limits it to a single county, and 
thereby the question, itself, as to whether there should be 
anything of the kind proposed in this measure. The 
amendment is not made for the purpose of amending ; it 
is made for the purpose of destroying ; and therefore, it 
raises a vital question. If it were for the purpose of in- 
creasing the efficiency, in rendering more harmonious the 
different parts of this bill, then it would be an amendment, 
but as it is, it is a direct aim at the vital principle of the bill, 
and so restricts it, that it is not to apply to the peo- 
ple of the State. Therefore the whole question turns upon 
this amendment ; and I hope it will not prevail ; and when 
the bill, itself, comes to a vote, I hope that it will pass, 
and that the opportunity may be given to the people of 
Ohio in their own localities, to exercise their sovereign 
will. For, by what authority do we legislate, but by the 
authority of the people ? The people ask us to return to 
them, in such localities as they see fit to use it, that power 
that they invested in us ; and they, being the sovereigns of 
this country, and asking of us the return to them a frac- 
tion of that power, and by petitioning to the extent they 
have, I declare in my opinion, it is a reasonable, 
proper, and wise thing to give them what they seek. 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 9I 



CHAPTER XVI. 

SPEECH OF MESSRS. OGLEVEE AND BOHL. 

MR. OGLEVEE— Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to 
occupy the attention of the House but a few mo- 
ments. I would have preferred at some other stage of the 
bill to make the remarks that I am about to make at this 
time. 

But if this amendment should prevail, it is an end of this 
measure. 

I am surprised, somewhat, at my friend from Washing- 
ton, (Mr. Bohl) for the introduction of this amendment — a 
gentleman who is generally fair on all questions of legisla- 
tion. I supposed that we might vote directly on this bill, 
and not have it affected by unfriendly amendments. 

But, standing here as the representative of those 4,228 
petitioners whose petition has been sent to this General 
Assembly, to-day, I might be considered as neglectful of 
my duty, should I not say some words in their behalf 

MR. BOHL — I would like to ask the gentlenam a ques- 
tion ; I would like to ask him whether he would like to 
have this House meet this question as the sixty-second 
general assembly, which was Republican, met it? [The 
Carnahan Bill, which proposed the restoration of authority 
in subdivision 6 of Sec. 199, of Municipal Code, to village 
councils to pass McConnelsville ordinances.] 

MR. OGLEVEE— I would not, no sir. 

MR. BOHL— Why didn't the gentleman defend it then ? 

MR. OGLEVEE— If the gentleman will go to my 
record in the sixty second General Assembly, he will dis- 
cover that I always voted, on every occasion, in favor of 
bringing the question to a direct vote in this House. He 
may examine my record on that question. 



92 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

MR. BOHL— I will ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, if 
that was the record of his party. 

MR. OGLEVEE— Mr. Speaker, it was not. It is no 
party question. 

Mr. Speaker, in that petition, to-day, the great majority 
of those persons are voters. There are those who work 
at the anvil, and in the work shops of our city ; there is 
the CathoHc and the Protestant ; the black man and the 
white man ; the rich man, the aristocrat, and the poor 
man. 

Those 4,228 petitioners come here from every class of 
our society; and I will ask the gentleman from Defiance, 
(Mr. Hardy) who has spoken sarcastically of this bill, that 
he may now come up and help me to vote for the naeasure 
that our people ask for, in our county. If I vote for this 
bill, if it becomes a law, it does not affect a single consti- 
tuent of the member from Defiance, unless they want it. 
If this bill goes upon our statute books as a law, to-day, it 
has no force nor effect in any municipal corporation, town- 
ship, or county, until that township or corporation shall 
carry it into effect by their ballot, or the ballot-box. 

I would like to hear some gentleman upon this floor 
say that he is opposed to giving such a measure as this to 
the people of his county. I would like to know his 
reasons why he is opposed to this just and this humane 
measure. Why, we hear the cry go abroad here that we 
have legislated upon the subject in reference to the fees 
and salaries of county officers. Upon what grounds ? 
Why, you say to me that you have been petitioned; 
petitioned by thousands and tens of thousands, in those 
counties, to reduce their salaries. I say, those petitions 
that come up in reference to that matter, haven't been one 
to where there are ten for this measure, and yet, gentle- 
men, to-day, will undertake to engraft upon this bill this 
amendment, in order to defeat this whole subject ! 

I can not believe that my friend from Washington de- 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 93 

sires to cripple the interests of this State, nor does he 
desire to say to me, or to other members upon this floor, 
that if we desire to have this question of local option 
tested in Clarke or other counties, we shall not have it. 

I shall vote for this bill, and, when I do so, I don't 
force upon the people of Washington county the provi- 
sions of this law, unless those people vote for it in that 
county. Now, I will ask him to accord to me, and to 
those I represent, his vote. Let me ask that he will help 
me make a law that will go upon the statute book, with 
the belief that the people of my county will vote for the 
provisions of this bill, and thereby curtail, if not entirely 
destroy the evil effects of intoxicating liquors in my 
county ; that there will be a sufficient number of votes in 
this House to engraft this amendment upon the bill, I 
hope not. I hope that it may be voted down, and then 
let the question come squarely ; let us meet this issue now, 
and stand by it or fall by it. I believe that every member 
upon this floor that would vote for this measure has an 
argument with which he may go to his constituency, I 
care not what the public sentiment on that question may 
be, and they will justify that act. If they say ''You 
voted for House bill No. 619," you say '' Yes, and when I 
voted for that bill, I still left it to the public sentiment of 
my county to say whether it shall be a law that is applica- 
ble to my county, or any township in my county, or any 
municipal corporation. " When you come to examine the 
bill, I challenge any gentleman to adduce a single good 
argument against its passage. I would like to have some 
gentleman adduce a single argument upon the floor of this 
House why he is in favor of this amendment, and say that 
it shall apply only to Clinton county. I would like to 
question the gentleman from Washington, (Mr. Bohl) ' 
whether, if this amendment is engrafted upon the bill he 
will vote for the bill to become a law ? 
MR. BOHL— Certainly. 



94 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

MR. OGLEVEE — Then he proposes to vote for a law 
that shall be applicable to Clinton county, but not to 
other counties, generally. He is not in favor of whole- 
some and good laws for the State of Ohio. 

MR, BOHL — I would like to ask the gentleman wheth- 
er he is trying to catch the Prohibition vote for the office 
of State Auditor ? 

MR. OGLEVEE — Mr. Speaker, I am not standing here 
asking the votes of the Prohibitionists ; asking the votes 
of Democrats ; asking the votes of Republicans ; or any 
person else ; I am standing here advocating a measure 
that I believe would be a good law upon the statutes of 
the state. 

But now I understand the author of the amendment to 
be in favor of that ; that he will vote for the bill if this 
amendment is attached, and thereby, by his vote say that 
such a law as that, is wanted for Clinton county. I an- 
swer him by saying that if you will vote for that kind of a 
law, and say it is good for Clinton county, you may say, 
at the same time, it is good for Washington county. That 
is what you say by your vote ; and when you say by your 
vote, why are you willing that it shall be left to the voters 
of Clinton county whether this shall become a law, or not, 
and unwilling that the same question shall be tested in 
that way in Washington county ? Now let me ask this 
further question : If it is a good thing for Clinton county, 
if he desires that it shall apply to that county, why is it 
that the gentleman is more partial to Clinton county, rep- 
resented by Mr. Quinby, than he is to Clarke county, rep- 
resented by myself? If he would give the measure to 
Clinton county, will he not go one step further, and assist 
to give that measure to Clarke county ? Will he not go still 
another step further ? Will he not give that same privilege 
to the county represented by the gentleman from Belmont 
(Mr. Alexander) who sits by his side, and desires that the 
provisions of this bill shall go to that county? 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 95 

The amendment now before the House has not a single 
meritorious feature in it, and I challenge the gentleman to 
produce an argument in favor of it, upon the floor of this 
House. I will patiently listen to it. I would like to know 
what is so desirable in that amendment that he wishes it 
engrafted upon this bill. 

I cannot think, gentlemen, for a moment, that enough 
of the members present will vote for it to engraft that upon 
the bill. Let the vote be taken. Let us take issue square- 
ly upon the propositions of the bill itself. 

MR. BOHL — Now then, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to 
this bill. I don't believe the majority of the people of this 
State desire this law. In fact, I know they don't. For 
whenever any party has declared in its platform against 
sumptuary laws, that party has always been successful. 
And the people don't desire that we pass sumptuary laws 
here. I am further opposed to this bill because I believe 
it to be class legislation. This question of liquor, is either 
right or it is wrong. And if wrong, you should pass a law 
here wiping out the entire traffic; but if right you should 
regulate it. 

But I have always said that I am in favor, and will to- 
day, with pleasure, vote for any bill or constitutional 
amendment, rather, looking to a license law. I believe, 
Mr. Speaker, that that is the only way to regulate this 
traffic, and correct the abuses that now exist, if they do 
exist. 

MR. FOSTER, of Cuyahoga— Do I understand the 
gentleman, that he believes the majority of the people of 
this State don't wish this law ? 

MR. BOHL— I do. 

MR. FOSTER— Will the gentleman state upon what 
he founds that belief? There has never been, I believe, 
one single remonstrance presented against it. 

MR. BOHL— Oh, Mr. Speaker, I know that. The 
people, I think, had sense enough to believe that the bill 



96 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

would not be passed here. And the people saw too, that 
the General Assembly had also evaded temperance legis- 
lation, and never met it squarely. 

And now the charge of the gentleman from Clarke, (Mr/ 
Oglevee) is that we are not desirous of meeting it fairly and 
squarely. 

A MEMBER — I wish to ask the gentleman if he was 
not incorrect in the statement that there had not been a 
remonstrance ? 

MR. BOHL— I may be. 

SAME MEMBER— I understood, Mr. Speaker, that 
you announced, this morning, that there had been one 
from the Liquor Dealers' Association, of Ohio ? 

MR. BOHL— I believe there was. 

MR. THORPE— I wish to ask what the political judg- 
ment of the State of Ohio was upon that sixty-second Gen- 
eral Assembly ? 

MR. BOHL— Oh, I don't know, and I don't care. It 
don't enter into the question at all. When this General 
Assembly was elected, the people didn't care. But I de- 
fy members to show a more stringent law upon any subject 
than upon this, to-day. And why don't you enforce the laws 
that you have upon the statute books at this time? Why 
don't you enforce the law that you have ? The law is strong 
enough. You don't need any additional law. ' I don't be- 
lieve this is a wise law, for, perhaps, one township would 
not permit saloons, and the other would ; and the case 
would be as in those states that have had it, that if a man 
wanted to drink whisky, he would run over to another 
township, where he can get it. 

Now sir, Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of a license law, a 
strong one ; for there are abuses, I believe, that should be 
corrected, and I believe that is the only way to do it. 

Do you answer me that this is wrong? Then let me ask 
you why it is the United States require a license from those 
people ? Why do you take their money, as the United 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 9/ 

States, and then try to thrust them out as a state ? I say 
license would meet this question. It is either right or 
wrong ; and if wrong, pass a law here prohibiting the sale 
entirely, and not meet it in this cowardly way. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I don't beheve — in 
fact, I know, that the majority of the people don't want 
such a law as this, and I offered this amendment, not for 
the purpose of killing the bill, but because the member 
from Clinton, (Mr. Quinby) has explained on this floor 
that the people of his county wanted this law, irrespective 
of party, and if so, I am willing to give it to them a year, 
perhaps, and if it is a good thing, you can afterwards ex- 
tend it. But I believe you will find, after they have had 
it one year in any one county of the state, that you don't 
want it extended at all. 

Now, there is a proposition pending in this House, for 
a constitutional amendment giving us a license law, and I 
say I will cheerfully support that. I say, make the license 
so large as to drive out a large majority of these saloon- 
keepers ; and if you then regulate the business, the same 
as the United States, you will not see the evils that are 
created now by having the small shops all around, selling 
whisky out of jugs ; selling to people they ought not to 
sell it to. It is the only way to correct it. You cannot 
correct it by local option. The states that have local op- 
tion, don't correct it. As I said, they will go from one 
township into the other to secure the whisky, and you 
have the same evil that you have now, without the rev- 
enue. But with a license law, you will di;ive out more 
than half the men from the business, because they can't 
afford to pay the license. You will thus legalize the busi- 
ness, and have a large revenue in your State Treasury ; 
and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is the only way to correct 
this evil, and it is the only way that I propose to vote. I 
think the Hquor law at this time is strong enough, and I 
defy any man to point out a given subject on which we 

13 



98 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

have such stringent laws as we have upon this same ques^ 
tion. 

I ask again, why don't you enforce these laws ? Why 
did you, in the sixty-second General Assembly, evade this 
question? Why didn't you meet it squarely, when you 
had a majority? Why did you want to saddle it upon 
this General Assembly ? Simply, I believe, for political 
buncombe. 

MR. OGLEVEE— Do I understand the gentleman that 
he approved the course of the sixty-second General As- 
sembly in evading this question ? 

MR. BOHL — No sir ; I don't approve it. I say you 
ought to have met it there squarely, but you didn't do it ; 
and now you ask us to do what you would not do. 

MR. OGLEVEE — The gentleman states that the sixty- 
second General Assembly should have met this question, 
then, squarely ; now has the principles of this question of 
temperance changed? 

MR. BOHL— I say that that General Assembly should 
have met it, because they always claim in their platform 
and in their speeches, to be friends of this measure, and 
the party to which I belong has universally, in all its plat- 
forms, declared against sumptuary legislation. Therefore, 
you ought to have met it squarely, but you dared not, and 
now you desire us to do so. 



CHAPTER XVn. 

THE DEBATE CONTINUED. SPEECHES OF MR. ALEXANDER AND 
MR. SEIFERT. 

MR. ALEXANDER— Mr, Speaker, the question be- 
fore the House is on the amendment offered by the 
honorable member from Washington, (Mr. Bohl) to make 
this law apply to but a single county in the State. I 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. . 99 

don't think that on an amendment of this kind, the debate 
ought to assume so wide a range as it has ; but I could 
not sit still and hear some of the statements made wtihout 
stating what I believe to be the views of the Democracy 
on a question of this kind. 

I am a Democrat of more experience and of greater age 
than my friend from Washington, and I have stood to de- 
fend its principles in the presence of howling mobs ; and 
I rise here to denounce the statement that it will commit 
the Democratic party to the support of violators of law, 
who are supported by the saloon system of the State ; 
that opposition to temperance legislation as sumptuary 
laws has made the Democratic party successful ! Never ! 
never ! Carrying such a load as this, it has almost doom- 
ed us to defeat. Great heavens ! has that grand old party, 
with its honorable record, its grand old principles, to come, 
at last, to tremble with fear before the saloon keepers of 
the State ? The violators of law, those who create crim- 
inals, and paupers, and idiots? Those who spread pauper- 
ism all around them ? Has the Democratic party to stand, 
at last, in its declining strength, and look to the support of 
the saloon system of the State ? Never ! I would state, 
like I heard another one state, " Let thieves go, but stand 
by the principles. " Let these saloon keepers go; don't 
let them, however, use our necks as millstones. Let us 
make it the party of law and order ; let us make it the 
party that will hear the cries of widows and little children, 
in their distress ; let it be the party that will demand that 
the majesty of the law be invoked on these scoundrels, on 
these violators of the law of this State. I am surprised at 
the statement of the member from Washington, that 
he makes it a strong point, that the laws upon our statute 
books are not enforced, You have a system where judges 
are elected by the votes of saloon keepers ; you have pros- 
ecuting attorneys whose election depends upon such votes ; 
and they stand, often, as men unworthy of the name, fear- 



lOO LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

ful in the discharge of their duties, looking only to politi- 
cal supremacy in the future. The member from Wash- 
ington has stated again, that this question has been raised 
here for political effect. That is why, he thinks, it is 
sprung upon this legislature. Let the grand old Demo- 
cratic party, if that is so, choose the side of the right, and 
humanity, and law. We have a right here to take our 
choice upon a subject such as this, and if it is sprung for 
political effect, let us vote solid in favor of laws that are 
in the interest of the whole people, and punish those vio- 
lators of law, who daily are violating these statutes. 
I protest against such doctrine; I protest against such 
statements, as that we have carried the State only 
when we have written * * Opposition to Sumptuary 
Laws," in our platforms. Oh, there are grander 
principles, if the member from Washington will read 
them. If he will read the principles in the Democratic 
platforms, he will find there, soul inspiring principles, 
grand and noble. Has it been for such things as this — 
that liquors might be sold, that penitentiaries might be 
filled, that murders might be committed, that men might be 
reduced to poverty and their children made paupers and 
criminals — that the Democratic party has organized and 
carried on this grand fight through all the country ? If it 
is, how terrible has been my mistake ! If it is, how long 
have I labored for error ! If it is, let us hide our heads 
in shame, when we, by looking, behold this crime, and 
this misery, and this wrong, and this injustice ! Mr. 
Speaker, look at the prayers that come to us in the 
way of petitions! and men will stand on the floor and ask, 
" How many legal voters are among them ?" I don't care 
whether there is one ; there are women, and there are 
children. Are not their prayers to be regarded ? Are 
they to be spurned by this body ? Are they to be driven 
away ? — these, the greatest sufferers from this evil, and 
from this wrong? Is that the doctrine ? are we only to re- 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. lOI 

gard voters ? are we in favor of disfranchising women for- 
ever? Are we trying to make the old Democratic party 
stand up and support this whisky selHng business ? Never, 
by my consent ! never ! ! 

This amendment should not prevail. If this is sprung 
upon us by enemies lor political effect, let us overwhelm 
them with confusion, Let us do what our consciences tell 
us is right. I don't care how elections may go, I don't care 
whether Hamilton may go Democratic or not, I am in 
favor of the passage of the law that will protect citizens all 
over this State. I know that if the measure passes, nine- 
tenths of all the townships in Ohio feel in favor of this, and 
will adopt this law. I know this infernal business can be 
hemmed in, in a few localities, prevented, surrounded by 
a cordon of fire, hated and despised until these people of 
Ohio open their eyes and see the taxes they pay, and the 
expenses they incur for allowing those men the liberty of 
making drunkards, destroying souls, destroying families, 
engendering crime, and blunting the moral sensibilities of 
society. 

Mr. DODDS — I merely desire to ask the gentleman 
when he became so strong an advocate of women's rights ? 
We had a little bill here a while ago, that was referred to 
a committee, of which the gentleman was a member, 
and they reported it back, recommending its indefinite post- 
ponement, which proposed to give this poor sex the right 
they now possess, that of becoming notaries public ; and if 
I mistake not, his name was signed to that report. 

MR. ALEXANDER— Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from 
Hamilton is very much mistaken. From the time the 
gentleman from Cleveland, Mr. Palmer, brought in his bill 
to allow them to practice law, I have voted consistently on 
this question, and on all questions. 

MR. DODDS — I desire to say that a gentleman informs 
me, that while the bill was in the hands of the committee, 
the gentleman from Belmont voted against it. 



I02 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

MR. ALEXANDER— Does the gentleman from Ham- 
ilton say that my name is to that report ? 

MR. DODDS — It is only an impression. 

MR. ALEXANDER— The gentleman states that it is 
only an impression. I say that it is not true. I hope the 
amendment may be voted down, and let us come to a fair, 
honest vote on the bill, that every member of this House 
may vote his honest convictions for or against this bill. 

MR. SEIFERT— Now, I don't know, really, that I de- 
sire at this time, to discuss the question under consider- 
ation, before the House ; but the remarkable position 
taken by the gentleman from Belmont, (Mr. Alexander) 
is such that I could not resist the temptation to rise in my 
place and say that he is entirely mistaken in regard to his 
views as to what has been the course of the Democratic 
party. 

While the Democratic party always has been, Mr. 
Speaker, and I hope, always will be, the friend of temper- 
ance in everything, it always has been the enemy of fanat- 
icism. We are not opposed to any laws for the regula- 
tion of the sale of ardent spirits. That has been demon- 
strated in these halls again and again. The laws now 
upon your statute books are owing their existence to the 
action of Democratic legislators, and I am satisfied 
that upon close scrutiny of the laws, every member in 
this body, that is really in favor of temperance must be 
satisfied that, for all practical purposes, in the protection 
of the people against the abuse of ardent spirits, we have 
a sufficiency of statutory provisions ; and while those laws 
are there and remain in force, in all municipalities, in all 
your counties and townships, cities and towns, it is useless 
for this legislature to pile more upon them. 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. IO3 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

SPEECH OF MR. BLOOM. 

MR. SPEAKER, I am opposed to the passage of this 
bill, and opposed to the amendment, because I in- 
tend to meet this question as I do all others, upon the test 
of that unerring rule, whether it will be for the best inter- 
ests of the people of the State. I have seen for years and 
years temperance excitement. I have gone by practical 
experience, and lived under every law which human ingen- 
uity has invented; and I declare here, to-day, that the 
old license system made the fewest drunkards, the most so- 
ber community, of any that ever existed, to my knowl- 
edge. And I say to you, that this very measure that you 
are attempting to pass upon the people of the State, will 
have localities where the quasi endorsement of the 
evils resulting from the sale of liquor will be taken, while 
if you don't pass it, you have nothing more than you have 
to-day. 

The gentleman from Belmont (Mr. Alexander) misrep- 
resents the Democratic party when he appeals in impas- 
sioned tones to us, that we are not the party of law and 
order, but in favor of making widows and orphans, and all 
the misery throughout the State. He mis-states the pur- 
pose of the Democratic party. We are against the evils 
resulting from the sale of intoxicating liquors, or anything 
else, but, we are the party of personal liberty. 

We say, as a party, and the Democratic doctrine is that 
every man is at liberty to do what he pleases, so that he 
does not injure his neighbor, society, or those that are de- 
pendent upon him. You may put a knife to your own 
throat, and attempt to take your own hfe, but the laws of 
the state do not take hold of you, if you should recover ; 



I04 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

but if you even threaten to do that to your neighbor, it 
takes hold of you. 

There is an illustration of Democratic liberty, and upon 
that I stand. All that you have in this law is the poor 
privilege of allowing the majority in a village or in a town- 
ship to say what shall regulate the appetites of their neigh- 
bors ; that is all there is of it. There is nothing else in the 
bill, than that thirty men shall say what twenty-five men 
shall do in regard to their personal habits. Now, I say, it 
will entirely fail in its object. It failed in the State of Penn- 
sylvania. The county from which I came, voted in favor 
of local option, say by, I think, 800 majority, but they 
didn't have that law in practical operation more than three 
years, until they voted it down, by a tremendous majority ; 
why ? Because it made more drunkards, more widows, and 
more orphans, by this traffic than they had under a well 
regulated license system. And so it will be with the peo- 
ple of this state. I am not holding the lash over you, 
gentlemen, and saying that your county will not sustain 
you, and appealing to the lowest passions that could actu- 
ate a person in making laws for a state, but I say you will 
fail in your object. Your desire to do away with intem- 
perance will utterly fail. It will be like it is in my own 
county, where certain townships and village s have for 
years, not sold a drop, and in those very villages they 
have worse dissipation, drunkenness and debauchery, than 
any other in my county. 

I have had practical experience in my own county, and 
I will tell you just how it operated : they go to where it is 
sold, they purchase it, and take it to town, and, in defiance 
of all decency, go down the streets drinking it at whole- 
sale, because they cannot buy it at retail. 

The gentleman should remember that it is one thing to 
pass a law, and another to enforce in. I have seen that 
popular sentiment does not sustain this law. The ap- 
petites of the people demand liquor and they will ride over 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. IO5 

every barrier, and do that which they ought not to do by 
the moral law. 

You have statutes upon statutes, which I will not 
name here for the suppression of crime, and yet there 
never was a day when it existed to so fearful an extent as 
it does to-day, because of this very principle. I believe it 
will be worse for the town in which I live. I believe other 
towns will vote it down, and make a hell of my own town. 

We had an exhibition, in my town, of a quasi license 
system, and I believe it has operated well. The principle 
is to put these saloonists under bonds ; and from fifty, in 
that town, they have dwindled down to five. 

Now then this bill before us leaves it to a vote of the 
people whether they will have local option. It shall only 
be sold for medicinal purposes ; measured out by a phy- 
sician. Gentlemen, do you know the corruption in the 
State of Indiana under such a provision as that? 
Have you informed yourselves as to the corruption and 
perjury that has existed throughout that state under such 
a law as this ? Your law does not meet it. It will only 
open new avenues of corruption. 

Until you restrain the appetite by a power greater than 
the power of legislation, you will have the same thing to 
deal with, in every conceivable shape. Go to your con- 
stabulary law in the State of Massachusetts where they had 
prohibition in toto, and what was the effect of it there ? 
Neither by the power of prohibition, nor with two con- 
stables in every township and every ward of every city or 
village, was the law carried out. Why, sir, I speak from 
personal experience. I was at the Adams House, and I 
inquired for a cigar, which I supposed was the only 
sort of ''cheer" one could indulge in there, though 
I could not smoke ; I asked for it, and I was told to step 
to a side door, and in there was one of the most magnifi- 
cent saloons I ever saw in my life, the outgrowth of that 
constabulary law in the State of Massachusetts, and in the 



I06 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

'* Athens of America." And they had more drunkenness 
in the State of Massachussetts than if there had been a 
Hcense law ; for, under the latter a man could not deal in 
liquors unless he could stand the test of the law, and those 
who were in favor of wiping out all who sold against their 
interests. 

I say, sir, upon my honor, and under my oath, as I 
believe that I am legislating for the best interest of the 
people of this State, that when you give up fanatical influ- 
ences, and go back to the practical part of Hfe, and ac- 
knowledge that the evil cannot be wiped out, you may then 
regulate it. It can be so abused as that it will not answer 
the purpose for which it was originally intended, for I 
say to you there is no gift of God that may not be abused ; 
and while this may be a good thing and a great blessing to 
the people, it is also one of the greatest curses when not 
regulated in that way, the correct temperance idea being 
lost, and drunkenness ensuing. I stand here pledged to 
legislate against any change in the liquor laws of the State, 
and I will carry out my pledges, if it costs me my place. 

Coming from Pennsylvania with a strict Hcense law, and 
hearing that there was no law for license here, 1 thought 
''surely there is the place where there will be no liquor 
sold ; the people will have the matter under their own con- 
trol." But when I came here I found fourteen saloons in 
a little town of a thousand inhabitants. I found the sale 
of liquor greater, ten times greater than in my own State, 
where this despised legalization of the sale of liquors is the 
plan. 

Now, I don't believe that the people of the State of Ohio 
will get back to sound principles until you get to that point 
in which you can drive this business, as the gentleman has 
said, into the smallest possible compass. You can't do it 
by making another law on that subject, at all ; you cannot 
do it by leaving it only with druggists and physicians, be- 
cause that is the curse resting upon one town in my coun- 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. lO/ 

ty, where there is no saloon at all You perceive, gentle- 
men, that the enforcement of law is altogether a different 
thing from the mere passage of it. If the dreams the 
gentlemen have indulged in would be realized, that by 
the mere passage of this law allowing the people to vote 
that no liquor should be sold, all the dram-shops would be 
shut up, and our children should go no more into them, 
and no such temptation should be placed in their way, oh, 
who could not vote for such a law as that ? If I could feel 
in that way, I would aid it. I am not afraid of anything 
they can bring against me in my own county ; but I speak 
what I know and believe on this subject. And therefore, 
I must vote, not only against the amendment, but against 
the whole bill ; and I will meet it fairly and squarely. 

I say the sentiment is wrong that the man who drinks 
and becomes intoxicated, and makes a brute of himself 
should not be punished, at all. I don't beheve in it. 
Why ? Because, in the exercise of my duty as magistrate, 
I cured a man of that trouble once, by sticking him in the 
jail of the county. Experience has taught me to believe 
that if the drunkard v/ere punished to a certain extent, it 
would be better. 

You cannot sell intoxicating liquors under our present 
law, for any purpose, whatever, to be drank where sold ; 
you cannot do it without violating law. You cannot give 
it away to a person in the habit of becoming intoxicated ; 
you cannot, by any pretense or device possible, purchase, 
or acquire, or come into possession of such ; you are liable 
to civil damages. No person can rent a house or building 
without being subject to the damages which will result 
from the sale of it. He can't rent his garden without be- 
ing personally liable for the absolute prohibition of the sale 
of it so that it will do no harm or no injury. And that is the 
extent to which my teaching as a Democrat goes, and no 
further than that. 

I will go that far, but cannot go a step farther, because 



I08 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

Democracy is really conservative. It is not fanatical. 
I therefore, say to the gentleman from Belmont, Mr. Alex- 
ander, that when he says the Democracy are advocating 
the saloon system, and when he says that we cannot stand 
up against the saloon system of the State, I tell him that 
the Democratic party of Ohio, is not responsible for the 
saloon system of Ohio. 

MR. ALEXANDER— I did not make that statement. 

MR. BLOOM— I will leave it to the house whether you 
did not. You said in those very words, that we were re- 
sponsible for the saloon system of the State. We are 
not ! We never made it, we went against it. I object to 
the Democratic party being branded with the stream of 
intemperance in the State, the vices of the State. I think 
that the extreme saloonists, to-day, and the extreme 
temperance fanatics, to-day, will refuse to vote for any 
license, whatever. We will rid the State of the saloon 
system, as now practiced, just the moment that you give 
us opportunity to do it. We are not responsible for any 
of the violations of law : we are not standing here and 
saying that you shall not enforce the laws of the State of 
Ohio ; we are not apologizing for violators of law ; we are 
not standing here and doing anything else than standing 
up for the majesty of the law, and for the interests of the 
citizens, under the Democratic doctrine that you shall 
only take hold of his action when he does another man 
an injury. 

Do you say that alcoholic liquors are injurious, and 
their use should be abolished ? You may just as well say 
that cigars should not be smoked. You could go just a 
step further, and say that coffee should not be drank ; that 
tea is injurious, and you should not use it. You have no 
business with them ; you have nothing to do with the 
employment of persons; but you can regulate these things. 

If you can bring men back through the Murphy doctrine 
of an appeal to the gospel of temperance and love, you 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. IO9 

will not need State legislation to help bring up public 
sentiment to the proper attitude. 

I have another word to say to gentlemen on the other 
side. But I don't say to them as they do to me that " if 
you don't vote this or that way, you will not be sent back 
again." If my people have petitioned, I haven't heard 
them. I know who they are, and respect their views, but 
out of the 333 petitioners, barely fourteen of them have 
voted this year the Democratic ticket. I attempted to 
show in the first place that this bill, according to my ex- 
perience, will not answer the purpose which the gentlemen 
beUeve it will. In the second place, I have attempted to 
answer the gentleman from Belmont. I, at least, so un- 
derstood him to say, that the Democratic party would be 
taking a position contrary to right, because they would not 
vote for local option.- Those are two of the points I have at- 
tempted to speak to. I thus believe, and shall so vote, 
against this amendment, and against the bill itself. Or if 
other amendments come up that I think may be a benefit, 
I shall vote upon them as they come up. 



CHAPTER XIX. 

THE DEBATE CONTINUED. SPEECH OF MR. NORTON. 

MR. SPEAKER, the arguments to-day have satisfied 
me of one thing, at least : That whisky and con- 
sistency won't mix; and that whisky and politics are like 
whisky, lemon and sugar, — kind o' good to take ; at least 
you have mixed the two together most admirably upon 
each side of the House. 

And I am satisfied, too, Mr. Speaker, from six years 
experience on the floor of this House, that one of the 
moving engines in poHtics is whisky; and it is but little 



no LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

difference whether you have a Republican engineer in con- 
trol of the machine, or a Democrat. I have not seen, as 
yet, a National try to run the concern, yet I cannot say 
that from the experience I have had with men, I would 
have much hope in that direction. 

I have not seen a strict Prohibitionist yet in control of 
this machine, and yet I cannot say from my own experi- 
ence, that I would have much hope in that direction. I 
have not seen that element in society that we all know to 
be the better class, have control of the machine, nor have 
I any hope, as long as vanity exists in men, of ever seeing 
the female portion of the community get control of it. I can 
say, however, taking humanity as a mass, that in that di- 
rection — and I am paying a very flattering compliment to 
the ladies, now — that I would have great hope, if we could 
fill these chairs with ladies exclusively, and then abolish, 
of course, any respectable drinking saloons, so that the 
ladies shall not go in. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, this discussion has taken a very pe- 
culiar form. — ''Tom, you done it!" "Dick, you're a 
liar ! " ''I didn't do it ! " ''You did ! " and "Sixty-sec- 
ond," and "Sixty-first," and "Sixty-third General Assem- 
bly," has been brought up in array here. I don't knoAV 
but what it is just as well so, too. I don't see how you 
can help it, to save your lives. I don't understand how you 
can avoid it, because, as I said in the beginning, whisky and 
consistency will not mix. And when these lobbies were 
filled in the sixty-second General Assembly, with people at 
least as respectable as those here to-day, and the responsi- 
bility of legislation rested upon the sixty-second General 
Assembly, — an "off" one from this, — I say to you that by 
subterfuge and cowardice you failed to meet the question. 
You simply did what has been done over and over again 
by a powerful majority that had power to take from the 
hands of any committee, you simply allowed one man, 
and one alone, to pocket the bill and carry it from the 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. I I I 

House. I say to the temperance people, and to the or- 
phans of the drunkards, I say to the wife of the drunkard, 
you have no hope in legislation. And when you come 
here and hsten to the speeches that have been made upon 
the floor, and realize that the eloquence of the gentleman 
from Belmont (Mr. Alexander) will open the fountains of 
your hearts and bring tears to your eyes — I say to you, 
that after all this, that when that man has crossed the 
threshold of yonder door, you have no further hope in 
him. Why don't you expend some of the energy, some 
of the force that you devote to the eloquence upon this 
floor, in Belmont county ? In ten minutes time, by fihng 
an affidavit before a Justice of the Peace, you might start 
the wheel of revolution in Belmont county, that would 
wipe out, under the present laws, the nefarious practice of 
saloon keeping in your county. Have you had the moral 
courage to do that ? I know you have not, sir. At least 
you never have done it, and you have lived, and you have 
had experience, and you have grown old in the Democrat- 
ic party. 

But you have responsibility resting upon you here," and 
you sit here, sir, upon this floor, and backed by this lobby 
of respectable people and with the eyes of these people 
upon you, you can grow eloquent. But do you think 
that thQ representatives of the people ought to place 
another law upon the statute books when you have not 
the courage to enforce the one that is there? 

MR. ALEXANDER— I want to state to the member 
from Seneca, (Mr. Norton) who has been brandishing his 
fists, over in this direction, that I have always prosecuted 
men who have violated the law, in liquor cases, without 
the hope of fee or reward, and I always intend to. 

MR. NORTON— Did you ever in your Hfe, sir, file an 
affidavit against a saloon keeper ? 

MR. ALEXANDER— I never did, because I don't fre- 
quent saloons, sir. 



112 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

MR. NORTON— I know you don't frequent them, and 
from that fact, I desire to say, yes, and boldly, that you 
haven't the courage to face the position you take upon this 
question. It is moral courage you want. It is not legis- 
lation. 

The gentleman from Clarke, (Mr. Oglevee) has said 
that intemperance goes broadcast, drunkenness runs rife, 
and crime is committed, but you, an attorney, and the peo- 
ple of your county have failed to take a position on this 
question. 

MR. OGLEVEE— of Clarke;— As the gentleman has 
alluded to my county, I may as well say this to him now, 
that we have prosecuted more persons for the violation of 
the liquor laws, and have assessed heavier fines, and col- 
lected more money out of the liquor traffic in Clarke 
county, than in any other in the State of Ohio. 

MR. NORTON — And you have expended the money 
to extend the saloon interest haven't you ? because it grows 
constantly upon you ? 

MR. OGLEVEE— Not at all", sir. 

MR. NORTON — It would require no local option for 
you, sir, if you would only carry into effect the laws that 
are now upon your statute books. 

Now, I have been interrupted and before I go further 
on this question, I want to state that I am not here to 
fight this bill. I care not how soon it is placed upon the 
statute books. 

Now in the name of humanity, if you intend to do what 
is right, if you are in earnest in the suppression of intemper- 
ance, don't come to the Legislature to do it ! You have 
tried local option ; you have tried the prayers of women, 
invoked the aid of God. I have seen you six hundred 
strong, the earnest and eloquent Christian women of Co- 
lumbus, surrounding this Capitol, in the rotunda of the 
Capitol, and yet when you called on Almighty God, you 
have failed to touch public opinion to such an extent as to 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. " II3 

wipe out this thing. And will you do it when God 
Almighty fails ? When Francis Murphy fails ? When the 
virtue, piety, and earnest zeal of the good fail, will 
you do it by simply placing upon the statute books local 
option as to whether the people of a community shall in- 
dulge in liquor drinking or not. 

MR. ALEXANDER— I want to ask the member from 
Seneca this question . He says we should have no more 
legislation in favor of temperance, because the present 
temperance laws are not enforced ; I want to ask him if he 
is in favor of repealing all our statutes for the suppression 
of murder, because murders are absolutely increasing in 
this country, though the penalty be death ? 

MR. NORTON— No, Mr. Speaker, but I know well 
that had the gentleman but seen a murder committed in 
Belmont county, or a crime committed against the State, 
a robbery or simple burglary, the robbing of the house of 
a client, the gentleman would have filed an imformation 
without delay. But when he sees children robbed, when 
he sees the father thrown into the ditch, when he sees the 
family devastated, the home taken from them in the do- 
main of his own county, he stands up and acknowledges on 
the floor of this House, that he has never filed an imfor- 
mation against a saloon-keeper ! Why, every man in that 
lobby, every man within the sound of my voice, knows 
it is a violation of our law, to pass across the counter one 
glass of whisky. 

" Ten thousands have gone over your counters to-day, 
and there is not one information filed ! 

MR. OGLEVEE — Is it unlawful, to-day, to pass over 
the counter a glass of beer or ale ? 

MR. NORTON— Why no, Mr. Speaker, but the gen- 
tleman wants to kill the maggot, and let the serpent live. 
What a remarkable temperance idea you have got ! What 
a splendid idea for doing good to humanity you have got 
into your brain ! You want to suppress liquor, but let 

15 



114 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

rum alone, when you know, sir, that you can do more 
good for the fatherless orphan by going out of this house, 
and drawing your salary at five dollars a day, and walking 
up and down these streets and enforcing the law upon the 
statute books. 

I don't desire, as one of the medical fraternity, that you 
shall throw the responsibility upon the physicians, 
by saying that it shall be dealt out upon a prescription. 
I believe that I can poison by a prescription as well as I 
can outside of it; and if it is wrong to make a man drunk 
at ten cents a drink, or three for a quarter, it is just as 
wrong to make him drunk when you can charge him two 
dollars and a half for it. (Laughter) 

You have got a law, if you have moral courage to en- 
force it, and you don't need anything else. And as I told 
you in the beginning, you have no right to sneer on that 
side of the House, or on this side of the House, because 
neither side had the moral courage, when you could do it, 
to place better laws upon the statute books. 

I have seen the 6ist General Assembly, with an over- 
whelming Democratic majority, veto this question ; I have 
seen the 62nd General Assembly, well, I was going to 
say at the very feet of King Alcohol, with a bill, and it 
would not attempt this legislation. You cannot deny it. 
You remember distinctly. It is not a question of politics 
for one side or the other. I say, if you had moral cour- 
arge, if you had honesty of purpose to do it, to-day, you 
might suppress, even without a law on the statute books. 

I am told by one gentleman that the Sixty-first did pass 
a certain law. No, it is a mistake. The sixty-first repealed 
a certain law, and a howl went up all over the State that 
we were again extending the intemperance of the people. 
The Sixty-second came into power, but it didn't dare to re- 
place it on the statute books. Honors are easy, so Demo- 
crat, so Republican. But if you look your wife in the 
face and say to her ''Henceforth I am with you in the 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. II5 

suppression of crime by carrying out the law," then you 
will do something for the people. 

You can do more by the blue badge, than by making 
speeches upon the floor of the House of Representatives. 

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Fairfield, (Mr. Seifert), 
said the temperance movement was simply a piece of fanat- 
icism. I don't desire to treat this question lightly. I would 
to God Almighty that you hadn't to consider it at all. I 
wish the better sentiment and moral influence of the Ameri- 
can people were such as to suppress intemperance. I have 
no hope in law ; I have no hope in maudlin sentiment ; I 
have no hope in speeches from the rostrum. The only 
hope I have is in the honest education of the American 
people against this evil. Teach them by carrying out 
what law you have. If you find a temperance law, enforce 
it. But I say to you, now, that more good to the peo- 
ple of the State and the United States, has come out 
of that element of reform, the Murphy Movement, than 
all the legislation that we have had since — since I was 
going to say, since the birth of Christ, [laughter], and I 
am right about it. Whenever men have enough moral 
courage to carry out their own honest convictions we will 
have reformation ; but without the good opinion of the 
public you have no law that can control men. 

I know that I have a difficult side of the question to 
meet. I can not appeal to your prejudice ; I can not 
hold up the iniquity of intemperance ; I can not hold up 
the desolation of homes to you, by this traffic, upon this 
side of the bill, because I desire to strip it of all its em- 
bellishments, and go into the communities and look it in 
the face. I say to you that you must take the better 
judgment, and common sense, and moral influence of the 
pubHc to sustain it. 

Mr. Speaker, I have not made this speech as against 
this bill. I have not said what little I have said in favor 
of the bill ; but I have said that the temperance people 



1 16 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

who have gathered here to-day, looking to us for aid, may 
know they cannot receive aid here, for they must work 
out their own salvation. Mould public opinion up to it, 
but you cannot under a statute, or through prohibition, or 
by a law inconsistent, a law wrong from the standpoint 
of total abstinence, and from the standpoint of free trade. 

MR. WILLIAMSON— As to the effect of legislation 
upon this evil, is the gentleman in favor of the repeal of 
all laws relating to this subject? 

MR. NORTON — I am not in favor of wasting one 
penny's worth of paper and ink to change that lav/, be- 
cause when I see that the public have no more interest in 
the law, that they will not enforce the law upon the 
statute books, I say that it is useless to encumber the 
statute book with more law. Why, I would say to the 
gentleman from Huron (Mr. Williamson) if you have the 
pluck, you can surround yourself by men of intemperate 
habits, even, by whose assistance you need not tolerate 
the evil, for a single day, within your corporate limits. I 
appeal to the gentleman from Clarke, (Mr. Oglevee) and 
the gentleman from Athens, (Mr. Townsend.) I appeal to 
you, gentlemen, as attorneys, if you dont't know, if your 
honest legal judgment does not tell you, that you have 
law enough upon your statute books, if properly enforced, 
to wipe out the sale of all whisky, by the drink, and in- 
temperance thereby. Is it not true, let me ask the gen- 
tleman from Athens ? . 

MR. TOWNSEND— I will answer that question : In 
the first place, the prosecution of a criminal must be con- 
ducted by the county prosecutor ; in the second place, 
the sales are clandestine ; in other words, there is a con- 
spiracy between the seller and the drinker ; in the third 
place, perjury in the grand jury room is common stock ; 
in the fourth place, the criminal statutes are more than 
twice as hard to indict and prosecute under, successfully, 
as the civil statute ; and I could give one hundred other 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. WJ 

reasons going to show that the argument of the gentle- 
man from Seneca and other gentlemen, is fallacious. 

MR. NORTON— God help us ! The gentleman has 
one hundred reasons ! like the man who played poker that 
had twelve reasons for quitting; when he gave the first 
one, it was because he had no money, and he had no need 
to give the others. Perjury is common stock in our grand 
jury rooms, and yet we try to legislate against intemper- 
ance, while perjury is common stock in our State ! Oh, 
we have had attorneys wasting wisdom mechanically, as 
they stand on the floor of this Legislature, and fight in- 
temperance, while acknowledging that perjury is common 
stock within our State. How in the name of God, will 
you enforce temperance law when perjury is common 
stock? The prosecutor is a pubhc official, and now, if 
you can not rely upon the prosecutor elected by the peo- 
ple, if you fail to get an honest prosecutor, how will you 
carry out the local option law, if the people elect a man 
who *' stands in " with perjury as common stock ? 

The statutes are too large ; they are incomprehensible 
to the people! The drinks are sold clandestinely ! Look 
at the reasons the gentleman has given ! Is it clandes- 
tine ? When you can walk along your streets and see 
every ten feet or so, citizens and legislators taking whis- 
ky over the bar, it is clandestine ! Every gentleman here 
very well knows this ; and yet the gentleman says for one 
reason that drinking is clandestine ! Oh, stop your motley 
sentiment, gentlemen ! Put you shoulders to the wheel, 
and carry out, as you can, if you will, the statutes you 
have, for the good of yourselves and community. 



Il8 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 



CHAPTER XX. 

THE DEBATE CONTINUED. SPEECH OF MR. HITCHCOCK. 

MR. HITCHCOCK— I hope, Mr. Speaker, to not 
detain the House at any tedious length by 
any remarks that I can make upon the pending ques- 
tion, which I understand to be the amendment pro- 
posed by the gentleman from Washington, although 
the discussion has gone through the entire provi- 
sions of the bill. That amendment seems to strike at the 
integrity of the bill itself. I am very glad, that for once, 
I find myself agreeing with my good friend from Richland 
(Mr. Bloom) who happens to be absent from his seat, just 
now. The gentleman says he shall vote against the pro- 
posed amendment. So shall I. That is as far as we agree. 
We don't always agree even as far as that. I regret to 
know that when this question comes before that gentleman 
for his consideration, that he finds himself committed by 
a pledge, prior to his election, against any change in the 
liquor laws of the State. I thank God, Mr. Speaker, I 
was not called upon to make any such pledge as that. If 
the life of an individual, and his entire course during that 
life, upon a question of this kind, a moral question affect- 
ing the best interests of the human race, is not sufficient 
to satisfy his constituents who propose to vote for that 
gentleman, he is placed in a position that I never desire to 
be placed in. I don't suppose, Mr. Speaker, that, should 
this bill receive an affirmative vote by this House, and 
become a law of the State, that thereby the evils of intem- 
perance would be arrested, or stopped. I have no confi- 
dence in any law thus resulting. Neither do I believe, 
Mr. Speaker, that by any one or more moral efforts for 
the suppression of intemperance without law, that result 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. I I9 

can be reached. No reform in this world of ours does 
reach success, except the moral influence of the commu- 
nity is brought to bear in favor of it, at the same time ; 
and there can be no reform, even by the strong arm of 
law, which stands unsupported by that moral influence. 
This question is what ? It proposes to impose upon no 
county or in no township of this State, an operative law 
against the wishes of that county or township. It simply 
proposes to give to the people residing within any particu- 
lar locality, the right to determine what shall be the law 
upon this subject. Is there any infringement of right? 

A great evil rests upon the land and humanity, — an 
evil growing out of the use of intoxicating liquors as a bev- 
erage. Any such evil demands the best energies of all the 
people for its suppression. 

What shall be done in regard to it ? It is said that we 
have laws on our statute books that are not executed. 
That may be true. But the gentleman from Richland (Mr. 
Bloom) asks for one single reason or argument in favor of a 
proposition of this kind. I submit to the gentleman that 
when a majority of any community votes in favor of the 
enforcement of any law, you give to the enforcement of 
that law a power that it cannot receive simply by the act 
of the Legislature. 

Understand, I don't advocate the passage of this bill, 
because I believe it will accomplish all the good that could 
be desired, but it is one of the steps sought to be takefi 
by the advocates of reform. 

And for one, Mr. Speaker, whenever there is presented 
to me an opportunity to take one of these steps, if little or 
large, whatever the confidence I may have in the result of 
that step, I stand prepared to take it with all the power 
God has given me, and I cannot but feel that he who stands 
in this, or any other presence, upon a question of this 
kind, and seeks to show that it ought not to be taken 
by this General Assembly, because some other General 



I20 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

Assembly has refused to take the step, is occupying a 
position no man, responsible to his fellowmen for the 
aiding and advancing of their best interests, can defend. 
It is said that the Sixty-first General Assembly avoided 
this issue. It is said that the Sixty-second General Assem- 
bly avoided this issue. It is said also clearly and distinctly, 
by my friend from Seneca, Mr. Norton, if I have not mis- 
understood him, that it will be avoided by this General 
Assembly. 

MR. NORTON — Let me make a correction : The gen- 
tleman is right, except as to saying that it will be avoided 
by this General Assembly. I said I believed legislation 
upon this subject was avoided by all General Assemblies. 

MR. HITCHCOCK— I trust the gentleman is not a 
true prophet. It seems to me that occupying the position 
which is occupied by all of us, we cannot make that dec- 
laration with regard to all General Assemblies, and not 
mean the present General Assembly. Therefore I believe 
I am not incorrect in the conclusion. But I fear what 
the gentleman says may be true. 

MR. NORTON— You will at least give me credit for 
having spoken correctly in regard to the Sixty-second 
Assembly. 

MR. HITCHCOCK— Very well, if the gentleman wants 
me, I will say that the Sixty-second General Assem- 
bly did avoid action upon the question presented to it, 
which was not at all the question of to-day, as the gentle- 
man very well knows. It was not at all the question of 
to-day. What was that question ? I will say, if the gen- 
tleman desires it, that the majority of the majority, were 
very decidedly anxious to act upon that subject, at that 
time, and make that a law, but they did not succeed But 
that is not the question of to-day. That was the restora- 
tion of what was known as the McConnelsville ordinance 
to cities and incorporated villages in the State ; not the 
submission of the entire question to the various locaHties 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 121 

of the State ; but by absolute law, extending that provi- 
sion to the incorporated villages and cities of the State. It 
didn't effect townships and counties. 

THE SPEAKER— Who was the author of that bill ? 

MR. HITCHCOCK— Mr. Carnahan. That is not the 
question of to-day. This differs insomuch that, if it 
should become a law it could not be operative in a single 
locality of the State, except the majority of the people of 
that locality desire it to be a law. The other was a law 
by absolute legislation, which makes it entirely different. 
Had this proposition been before that General Assembly, 
I caVmotsay what would have been the result. I can only 
say this, Mr. Speaker, that I have had, until this question 
came up this morning, hope that, whatever may have been 
the case before this, when 50,000 people of Ohio have peti- 
tioned for it, that this bill might pass. 

I don't care, as my friend from Belmont, (Mr. Alexan- 
der) says, whether they are voters or not. I recognize the 
right of the mother, of the wife, of the sister, to ask pro- 
tection of the law, as much as I recognize the right of the 
voter ; yea, more do I recognize it upon a question of this 
kind, and for this reason, Mr. Speaker : This simply asks 
that the voters of localities may determine what shall be 
their law. When my mother, when my wife, when my 
sister, ask that they may be charged with the responsi- 
bility of saying what shall be law in this matter, in their 
localities, I repeat, I don't care whether those who sent 
in petitions here are voters or not. 

I regret, Mr. Speaker, I regret not having had the hon- 
or to present more petitions from my own little county. 
Certainly when women are not allowed to go to the polls 
and help settle this question, their petitions ought to come 
with great force to us. 

MR. NORTON— I think the total vote in the State 
was about 625,000 last fall, and there were 7,000 that 
had the honesty to vote the temperance ticket. What 

16 



122 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

hope have the wives, mothers, sisters, and children, when 
625,000 vote against the idea, and only 7,000 vote for it. 

MR. HITCHCOCK— Mr. Speaker, I want to say, in 
answer to the gentleman from Seneca, that perhaps I can 
give no reason sufficient for the gentleman, but I say this : 
what I believe the women of Ohio feel, what I know they 
feel in my county, that they are willing to trust my action 
upon this question, as are my constituents without a 
pledge beforehand. The gentleman asks what consisten- 
cy there is in only 7.000 voting the temperance ticket. 

MR. BLOOM — I just wish to ask the gentleman, what 
he would do if he were publishing a paper, and the varfous 
political managers were putting questions to him as a can- 
didate, would you answer them or keep quiet? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK— Well, I am not publishing a paper, 
and never did publish a paper, and don't expect to publish 
a paper, and I can't tell how an editor feels under such cir- 
cumstances who is a candidate? [Laughter.] 

MR. BLOOM — Does the gentleman desire to do me 
injustice, in placing me before the General Assembly as a 
person whom his constituents require to be pledged ? 

MR. HITCHCOCK— I answer the gentleman that so 
far as his interests are concerned, I don't desire to do him 
any injustice ; I simply referred to the gentleman's own 
statement in the matter. If I was an editor, and the ques. 
tion was asked me, I would do about answering, just 
what at the time, I felt was right, and that is just what I 
would do about it without being an editor. 

MR. BLOOM— Will the gentleman allow me to ask, 
wouldn't he Hke to know how a gentleman stood before 
voting for him? 

MR. HITCHCOCK— Yes, sir, but my Hfe and my vote, 
almost for twenty-one years past, has shown what I thought 
upon this question, and I don't think it has been changed 
before or after election. 

Now, my friend from Washington, (Mr. Bohl), and the 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 1 23 

g-entleman from Richland, (Mr. Bloom), and perhaps 
others, I have noticed, Mr. Speaker, in the discussion of 
this question, advanced the idea that the enactment of a 
law of this kind could not accomplish any good whatever, 
but the very thing needed is a license law. Now, Mr. 
Speaker, the question of Hcense or no license is not before 
the General Assembly at this present time. It cannot be 
before the General Assembly except as a proposed amend- 
ment to the constitution, as the gentleman very well un- 
derstands. I am very ready for it to be submitted — not 
by my vote, but I am ready, if this General Assembly 
desires, to submit that question. 

I notice that at the election in 1874, when the question 
of license or no license was again submitted to the people 
of Ohio, the county of Washington, also decided against 
license by about a thousand majority. I did not look in 
regard to the county of Richland. * 

MR. BLOOM — My county gave about 300 majority 
against it, the extreme saloonists, and the extreme tem- 
perance men voting together. 

MR. HITCHCOCK— I know that is the argument, but 
is not that a unique idea, the extreme temperance people, 
and the extreme saloonists uniting to defeat that provision 
of the constitution? They decided against it, at all events, 
as I understand perfectly well. Now, the question has 
been submitted, and is not now before us. But here 
is a question before us, and it is not a question asking the 
people of Ohio whether there shall be power to license the 
traffic in intoxicating liquors in Ohio ; it is to submit to 
each of the several localities whether they desire any differ- 
ent law upon the traffic in intoxicating liquors. 

It is a question that comes to all of us with force, from 
the fact that we know it is sought for, by the most earnest 
laborers for the reform of the evils flowing from the effects 
of intoxicating liquors. It is forcible, also, from the fact 
that these people have sent to us a large number of peti- 



124 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

tions : and it is also a fact very evident to us, now, with 
this question undisposed of, that these petitions have just 
begun to come in. Why, this very day more than 7,000 
petitioners have asked for the passage of this particular 
bill ! 

This shows that we are called upon to consider this 
question. The people don't come to us and say to us, 
make this a law. That is not the character of the people 
of Ohio ; but they come to us, and with earnest seeking, 
ask of us that we will carefully consider it, in the light of 
all that can be brought to bear upon the subject, and our 
best judgment, and that of the community to aid us, that 
we shall make it a law. That is the position we occupy 
here to-day, with all this pressure brought to bear upon us. 

I do deprecate, Mr. Speaker, this thing of seeking to 
regard this as in any sense a political question. I some- 
times am very glad to hear my good friend over there, 
(Mr, Bloom), get up on this floor and oppose something 
upon political considerations, but I confess, knowing the 
characteristics of that gentleman, that I didn't like to hear 
him refer to this side of the House, and I say to my good 
friend from Richland, it seems to me, he could not have so 
far forgotten himself as to refer to ' ' the other side of the 
House." 

MR. BLOOM — You were holding the lash over me. 

MR. HITCHCOCK— Now, if anybody holds the lash 
over the gentleman from Richland, that gentleman will 
have hold of the butt of the whip. In fact, I don't know 
of anybody who would attempt to lash the gentleman from 
Richland, if once they saw him wield the whip as he did 
to-day. But the gentleman, I suppose, is sorry he said 
that. 

MR. BLOOM— No, I am not. 

MR. HITCHCOCK— Not sorry? I very much regret 
that. 

I said I had some hopes of you gentlemen on the other 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 12$ 

side of the House. 1 was sorry all the time, to believe 
that there were some upon this side of the House that 
would vote against the passage of this bill, but I was re- 
joiced with the encouragement which I received upon the 
various votes that had been taken upon this and kindred 
subjects, to know that a number of votes on the other side 
of the House were for this measure. If I am about to be 
disappointed, I regret it very much. 

But I say, if it be so, it necessarily presses upon me the 
conviction, as it must upon all others, that, for some rea- 
son, political considerations have entered into the consid- 
eration of this subject, which ought before all others to be 
considered only with reference to duty and the wishes of 
the people as expressed. 



CHAPTER XXL 

THE DEBATE CONTINUED SPEECHES OF MESSRS. LUCCOCK, 

AND SULLIVAN OF MIAMI. 

MR. LUCCOCK— I reaHze the fact I am here as the 
Representative of the people, and as one of the 
law-makers of the people ; and I realize that a responsi- 
bility rests upon me. And feeling as I do upon this sub- 
ject, I am opposed to this amendment, and in favor of 
the bill. I don't wish to occupy much of your time, but 
as I had the honor to be a member of the Sixty-second 
General Assembly, and with the assistance of my Demo- 
cratic friends put my Republican brethren upon the record, 
I think I am entitled to use, at least ten minutes of this 
precious time. But now let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I 
have, in my life time seen scenes that excited my surprise ; 
but of all the scenes I have witnessed to my surprise and 
astonishment, it has been to see an intelligent member of 
this body get up on this floor, in his place, and say that 



126 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

the people of the state of Ohio don't desire any more 
temperance legislation, in the face of the fact that, within 
the last sixty days, there has been a perfect avalanche of 
petitions from the intelligent voters and citizens of this 
State, asking for additional temperance legislation. 

But, if the gentleman is ignorant of the fact, if he will 
come to my desk after the adjournment this evening, I will 
show him a record of at least 35,000 citizens of the State 
of Ohio, asking this Legislature that they pass a local op- 
tion law. 

But for a man, on this floor, to get up, in view of the 
legislation upon this subject since the year i65idownto 
the year 1879, ^^^ ^^^^ about what he calls — what did you 
call it ? One of those big dictionary words — 

A MEMBER— Sumptuary. 

MR. LUCCOCK— Sumptuary laws. ' [Laughter]. A 
sumptuary law ! Did this Legislature of Ohio ever pass 
sumptuary laws to protect religious associations, camp- 
meetings and religious bodies, from the evils resulting 
from the sales of intoxicating liquors ? Is there not, on 
the statute books of the State of Ohio, to-day, a law that 
prohibits any man selling liquor within two miles of a 
camp meeting ground? within two miles of other corpo- 
rate bodies that meet ? and what is that, but, in the esti- 
mation of the gentleman, a sumptuary law ? Now in all 
good conscience, if people meeting together to worship 
God ; if people meeting together in a social capacity, a 
Sunday school association, if laws protecting them are not 
sumptuary laws, I want to know if the defenceless women 
and children of this State do not need protection ? I ask 
in all conscience, I appeal to your judgment as intelligent 
men, and representatives of the people, if there is any con- 
sistency in passing a law by which you shall not sell liquor 
within two miles of a camp meeting, and refusing to pass 
a law that would protect a man in his family circle ? 

Now, gentlemen have talked upon this floor, this after- 



THE DEBA'lE IN THE HOUSE. 12/ 

noon, as though this were a new thing in legislation, upon 
the sale of intoxicating liquors. I think, if these gentlemen 
who talk about — about this — what did you call it? [Laugh- 
ter] sumptuary law, would turn back and read the his- 
tory of their country during the colonial days, they will 
find that in 165 1, the little settlement on Long Island 
passed a law restraining the sale of intoxicating hquors. 
He may look back a little further in history. In 1637 
they passed a license law by which there was an embar- 
rassment placed upon the sale of liquor, where it was sold 
for more than one penny a quart. They thought by mak- 
ing it so cheap, it could not be sold for a penny a quart ; 
it would be so much like the milk that is sold in Columbus, 
it would not be sought after. [Much laughter.] They 
found that this law passed in 1637, didn't meet the object, 
consequently, the settlement in Long Island adopted a 
law not very far different, in provisions, from the bill be- 
fore the House this afternoon. In 1655, a settlement in 
Connecticut passed another law. That was a little be- 
yond the time when the young gentleman was born ; a little 
further back in antiquity. I don't presume that he remem- 
bers it. [Laughter.] I think that law was, that no man 
could sell intoxicating liquors in the settlement, unless he 
had the consent of the settlement. Now, we come down 
to 1846, when what is known as the Maine Prohibitory 
Law was passed. It was amended again in 185 i, making 
a provision that they could confiscate all the liquor that 
was sold contrary to law, if my memory serves me right. 
I presume that the citizens of Maine, perhaps will compare 
very favorably with us, in point of temperance. One of 
the provisions of that act was, that the Governor appointed 
a superintendent, under the law, who furnished each coun- 
ty with the requisite allowance that was to be sold for 
medicinal purposes, alone. 

It was found necessary to make that law a little stronger, 
and in 185 1, or '56, I forget which, '56 perhaps, they 



128 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

amended it so as to put in this clause, that they were to 
confiscate all liquors'sold illegally, [according to the Maine 
Law. In 1873, the Maine Law was amended again so as 
to incorporate a provision that is contained in what is 
known as the old Adair Law, passed by the Ohio Legisla- 
ture in 1870. It is the law that has been passed in Maine, 
entirely as a temperance law which has provisions in it 
that are in the Adair Law ; that is, giving compensation to 
persons who are injured by the sale of intoxicating liquors. 

Vermont has a local option law; New Hampshire has 
a local option law ; North Carolina has a local option law, 
pretty much like the one we have proposed here. Califor- 
nia has a local option law ; New Jersey has a law similar 
to the New York State law, which gives persons who are 
injured by the sale of intoxicating liquors, the right to 
recover, as it was under the old Adair Law. Arkansas 
has a local option law, and one provision of the Arkansas 
local option law I like better than I do this. It requires 
that a majority of the citizens, men and women, shall sign 
a permit before a man can sell liquor, under any circum- 
stances, in that State. Iowa has a prohibitory law ; Illinois 
has incorporated in their temperance laws, the same pro- 
visions as the Adair Law. Michigan has the same. I 
could go on and enumerate State after State that have 
passed these laws ; and yet intelligent gentlemen on this 
floor undertake to say that the 35,600 honest citizens 
that have asked for the same kind of legislation, are fools, 
and are asking for what they ought not to have. Now, 
one of the intelligent gentlemen upon this floor has talked 
very wonderfully and eloquently about what the Murphy- 
ites are doing, and don't believe in legislation. He is a 
great man for moral suasion. That is all right enough, but 
there are other questions entering in here. 

This law may be inoperative in the city. We grant it. 
We want protection in the country. I ask any intelligent 
gentleman in the House to go through the city of Colum- 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. . I2g 

bus ; visit business establishments ; others to go to Cin- 
cinnati and go through the business estabHshments there, 
and go to the seaboard states and in their cities, and ask 
of the majority of the enterprising and intelligent business 
men who make the world move, where they were born, 
and where they were raised, and I venture the assertion 
that in three times out of five, yes, nine times out of ten, 
they were born and reared in rural districts. They have 
raised the corn and beef and pork, to feed the populous 
cities, and they furnish the muscle and the brain to conduct 
the business ; and we want legislation that will enable us 
to keep them good and strong. We have got the ability 
to do it if you give us a vote on the question. I don't 
wish to take a political view of this question. 

I am a little like the old lady out in Wisconsin. She 
said it always gave. her the heart-burn to eat corn bread. 
One day they told her that corn was what they made 
whisky out of. Well, said she, ever since she heard that 
argument, she had worried down a good deal ! I think if 
the sixty-third General Assembly will pass a strong local 
option law, I can worry down a good deal of it. [Laughter], 
I don't care where it comes from, gentlemen, if you will 
give us a law that will protect our firesides, that will pro- 
tect our children, that will protect our wives, that will pro- 
tect our best interests. 

Another thought and I am done : Some of the gentle- 
men on the floor talk about consistency ; and while they 
were talking about consistency, it reminds me a good deal 
of that couplet of Scotland's favorite bard : 

" Wad some good power tbe giftie gi' us, 

To see oursel's as ithers see us, 
From many a blunder it would free us," &c. 

Even the Sixty-second General Assembly advocat- 
ed a measure, in some degree the same that I am advo- 
cating to-day, and at that very time there was a bill upon 
our bill books putting a severe penalty upon the sale of 
illuminating oil, and I appealed to gentlemen on this floor, 

17 



130 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

about the inconsistency of putting such severe restrictions 
upon the sale, when it was a known fact that there was 
not one Hfe destroyed by an accidental explosion of lamps 
in the use of this oil, for one hundred that were destroyed 
in this State by the use of intoxicating liquors. 

Somehow or other that bill, with the shame of it, 'was 
defeated, but last winter it came up again, and was passed; 
thereby building up an important monopoly, by taxing 
one of our most important products, one of our most im- 
portant necessities, one of our great luxuries ; taxing 
light ! Still these gentlenen, before they would pass a law 
to protect us against the evil of intemperance, I have no 
doubt would pass a law modifying and limiting the light of 
the sun, if they could. They have put a revenue upon 
light, increasing the cost of it, and building up a monopo- 
ly, and stand here to-day and talk about sumptuary laws. 
[Laughter.] 

MR. SULLIVAN, of Miami— I don't know that I need 
to add anything upon the subject after its being so ably 
discussed as it has been, by those who have preceded me. 
If I understand the gentleman from Richland, (Mr. Bloom) 
right, and the gentleman from Seneca, (Mr. Norton,), Mr. 
Speaker, they have no disposition to have the present 
laws pertaining to the use of ardent spirits wiped from the 
statute books. If I am mistaken I would like to be cor- 
rected. The very fact that a license law is advocated by 
the gentleman from Richland, itself implies that, in its very 
nature, there is something wrong in the sale of ardent 
spirits, of intoxicating liquors. 

Now, this bill, as I understand it, is intended to reach 
that result more directly, and in a more simple manner 
than that which exists under the law upon the same sub- 
ject. The old law, as I understand it, provides that the 
matter shall be presented to the grand jury, and an indict- 
ment must be had, and it must go through all the forms of 
a criminal prosecution, which was very detrimental to those 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. I3I 

who engaged in the enforcing of it. That is now all I have 
to say upon that subject. This bill is a better one by far. 
Now, I did not come here with any pledge. I was not 
obliged to give one to my constituents, only what has been 
exemplified in my life and character, before them ; that is 
the only pledge I gave; no verbal pledge to any one, upon 
this subject. I should not have risen from my seat if it 
was not for the purpose of referring more particularly to 
the remark made here that the signers of these petitions 
were not all voters. I meant to say that our petitions 
from Miami county are not signed exclusively by voters ; 
and there was one with not a voter on it ; but, sir, I pre- 
sented it because the citizens have a right to be heard on 
this matter ; and I say that I would more readily vote for 
this bill if every petitioner was a woman. I must relate a 
circumstance, and I desire to have every member of this 
House hear me on this subject when I read over the names 
on that petition. I found the names of these mothers that 
have, each of them, a son in the State's prison, brought 
there directly from intemperance. This I know to be a 
fact. And another case by a wife whose husband is now 
here listening to us ; and I have known him for twenty-five 
years to be harmless in all the relations of life, when out 
from under the influence of intoxicating liquors. In an- 
other instance there are three sisters who signed this peti- 
tion, who have a brother languishing in this penitentiary. 
And I say they have a right to be heard. Indeed, sir, Mr. 
Speaker, I would vote more freely for this m.easure, be- 
cause they suffer more from this than the male population. 
And I will further say, while I have the floor, I have lived 
a long while; longer I presume, than most of the members 
on this floor, and this subject has made some progress in 
forming public sentiment against the vice of intemperance. 
I have seen the day when men would take a bottle of 
whisky and carry it, in open daylight, through the streets. 
Not a gentleman on this floor would venture his reputation 



132 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

to do that to-day. Now, I will further state, that I have 
never, in the history of my life — in the dim distant past of 
my life, met a man so far sunken in degradation as to wish 
the demon of intemperance to enter his threshold. He 
may talk flippantly when it is outside, but let it enter his 
own door, and I tell you, he will be the first man to say, 
**Give us laws to punish it!" I know this to be a fact. 
I want the people to have a chance to vote upon this ques- 
tion, the great safeguard around us. If the townships don't 
adopt this law, they are responsible for the expenses of 
the criminal cases growing out of the cause of intemper- 
ance. Give us local option, in the true legitimate sense of 
the word, and let us manage our own affairs in our own 
way. 

At the close of Mr. Sullivan's speech, the House took 
a recess until lo o'clock on the next day — when, upon as- 
sembUng, the question still being upon the passage of the 
bill with the pending amendment, Mr. Poe obtained the 
floor, and addressed the House at great length in opposi- 
tion to the bill, going over the same ground that had been 
gone over by others, that spoke in opposition to it the day 
before : that the present liquor statutes were sufficient to 
suppress the traffic if enforced. 

He was followed by Mr. Thorpe of Ashtabula, in a 
strong speech in its favor, in which he alluded to the con- 
dition of affairs in the country districts, their want of 
police regulation, the demands the people were making 
for the passage of the bill, &c. 

Mr. Thorpe was followed by Mr. Worley, who made a 
long and somewhat rambling speech against it, in which 
he charged that the temperance people of the State were 
responsible for the present evils of intemperance by reason 
of their constant agitation of the question, and asserted 
that the people of the State placed confidence in the Dem- 
ocratic party, and looked to it to defeat the bill. 



THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. 1 33 

Mr, Williamson then spoke at considerable length in 
favor of the bill, making an able argument, followed by- 
Mr. Townsend, also in its favor. This closed the debate, 
near the end of the second day. The House then came to 
a vote on the pending amendment, and after sundry other 
amendments offered and voted down, a vote was reached 
upon the bill itself, as related in a previous chapter, where 
the vote is given in detail. 

There was no stenographic report taken of the speeches 
that were made in the second day's debate. It was 
thought to be unnecessary, because of the wide range 
taken the first day, about all the points and propositions 
for or against the principle of the bill, its practicability 
and necessity, having been raised and pretty fully dis- 
cussed. 

It is but an act of justice to the gentlemen making these 
speeches, to state that they were delivered impromptu, and 
without knowledge on their part that they were to be re- 
ported. A few of them have been slightly shortened, by 
leaving out portions that were thought to be the most im- 
material to the subject under discussion, for the purpose 
of getting them into a smaller compass. The others ap- 
pear verbatim. 



134 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

CHAPTER XXII. 

BRIEF HISTORY OF TEMPERANCE LEGISLATION IN OHIO. 

THE Constitution of 1802 was silent on the question 
of the sale of intoxicating or other liquors. As the 
then young State was probably in need of revenue, the 
question of licensing the sale of liquors seems to have en- 
gaged the attention of the Legislature at that early day. 
At that time, and on up until a comparatively recent 
period, liquors were only sold at taverns, as the hotels 
were then called, or at eating houses. The saloon system 
of to-day was unknown. No one seems to have ever 
attempted to open a room for drinking or tippling, discon- 
nected from a house where the substantials of life could 
be procured. That was left for modern ingenuity to de- 
vise, plan, and execute. The gilded palaces of modern 
time, with their fine counters and French plate glass mir- 
rors, and with their long list of wines and Hquors, as found 
in- the cities of to-day, had no existence then. 

Neither had the lower grade of saloons, the dark, dingy, 
dimly lighted, low down dives of these latter days, any ex- 
istence then. They are a fungus growth that have fasten- 
ed themselves upon society, under a constitution and laws 
made in pursuance thereof, that recognizes neither entire 
prohibition, nor license, and in effect like some great can- 
cer on the body politic, sending its roots and poison into 
every part of the system. 

Under an Act of the Legislature, passed on the first day 
of February, 1805, entitled '* An Act for granting license 
and regulating ferries, taverns, and stores," it was enacted 
that no person should be permitted to keep a tavern, or 
sell, barter, or deliver for money, or other articles of value, 
any wine, rum, brandy, whisky, or other spirits or strong 
drink, by less quantity than one quart, or any cider, beer, 
or ale, by less quantity than one gallon, unless the person 
should have first obtained license from the associate judge 
of the proper county, or a permit from the clerk thereof. 
In the recess of the court, such license could only be grant- 
ed on application to the associate judges or clerk, when 
supported by the petition of twelve householders of the 
township and in the neighborhood where the tavern was 



HISTORY OF TEMPERANCE LEGISLATION. 1 35 

proposed to be kept. The applicant was also required to 
advertise his intention at least thirty days before the set- 
ting of the court to which he intended making application, 
in three of the most pubhc places within the township, and 
keep an advertisement of the same on the court-house door, 
during the first ten days of the term. 

The same act provided a penalty for any person licensed 
as a retailer of wine, spirituous liquors or strong drink, 
knowingly allowing, or permitting any kind of betting or 
gaming for money, or any other article of value, either at 
cards, billiards, bowles, shovel-boards, fires, or any other 
game of hazard or chance, to be played or carried on within 
their house, shed, arbor, or other places in their occupan- 
cy, or suffering any disorders, revelings or drunkenness 
therein. 

Another section provided, ''That if any person should 
retail any liquor or strong drink, without having first ob- 
tained a license or permit therefor, the person so offending 
shall forfeit and pay for. every such offense, a sum not ex- 
ceeding thirty dollars, to be recovered as other fines under 
this act are recoverable." 

Under an act, for the prevention of certain immoral 
practices, passed February 14th, of the same year, it was 
made an offense for any person being intoxicated to be 
found making or exciting any noise, contention or disturb- 
ance, at any tavern, court, election or other meetings of 
the citizens for transacting or doing any business apper- 
taining to or enjoined on them, under penalty. 

In 1809 an act to prevent the selling of spirituous liquors 
to the Indians was passed, providing that if any tavern- 
keeper, or other person or persons, should sell or barter 
any spirituous or other liquids of intoxicating quality, to 
any Indian or Indians within this State, or convey or at- 
tempt to convey, or be instrumental in conveying any of 
the aforesaid liquors or liquids out of this State, with an in- 
tent to dispose of the same to any Indian or Indians, un- 
less authorized by the proper authority, such person or 
persons should forfeit and pay a fine not exceeding one 
hundred dollars, nor less than five dollars, to be recovered 
with cost of suit, by indictment in the county where the 
offense was committed. 

An act was passed on the 8th day of Febuary , 1 8 1 o, repeal- 
ing the acts of February, 1805, ^^^ March 14th, 1809, 



136 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

and re-enating the former laws on the subject with but 
few sHght changes. 

By section three of this act, beer and cider were except- 
ed from the operation of the statute, entirely, and were 
permitted to be sold without license. 

By section twelve of this act, prosecution for the viola- 
tion of the act did not go before a grand jury, but juris- 
diction was given to justices of the peace. This statute 
remained in force until January 5, 18 19, when an act was 
passed requiring that the applicant should produce a rec- 
ommendation, in writing, subscribed by twelve or more 
reputable landholders, residing in the neighborhood of the 
place where it is proposed to establish a tavern, setting 
forth that a tavern is needed at such place, and that the 
applicant is a suitable person to|keep a tavern. 

It also provided that it should not be lawful for any tav- 
ern keeper to sell upon credit, to any person resident of 
the county where such tavern is kept, or within ten miles 
of such tavern, liquor of any kind to a greater amount than 
fifty cents ; and no tavern keeper or his assistant could re- 
cover in any action whatever, a greater sum than fifty 
cents, for liquor sold to any person resident of the county 
where the tavern was kept. 

Also, that if any person other than a tavern keeper 
should sell or retail, any kind of spirituous liquors, to be 
drank at the place where sold, every person so offending 
should forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding twenty dol- 
lars. It was also provided by this act that any incorpor- 
ated town might license taverns, conformably to its charter, 
subject to the conditions of the statute in regard to recom- 
mendation. 

On February 25, 1820, an act was passed consohdating 
the then existing statutes, by which some important modi- 
fications were made, as follows: It was no longer unlaw- 
ful to sell liquors upon credit. It was made unlawful for 
a tavern keeper to permit gambling in his house, or riot- 
ing, reveHng, gambling or drunkenness on his premises. 

The provision in regard to sales of liquors was modified 
so that if any person other than a tavern keeper should 
retail any kind of spirituous liquors, by less quanity than a 
quart, every person so offending should forfeit a sum 
not exceeding twenty dollars. This was a very important 
modification of the statute, changing the statute as it did, 



HISTORY OF TEMPERANCE LEGISLATION. 1 3/ 

SO as to permit the sale of liquor in any quantity of one 
quart and over without license, and also taking away from 
the law the restrictions against selling it to be drank upon 
the premises where sold. 

There was left out of section seven the clause construing 
the section so that it should not take from any incorpor- 
ated town the privilege of hcensing taverns conformably 
to its charter. 

On January 29, 1829, an act was passed to regulate 
grocers and retailers of spirituous liquors, by which the 
Courts of Common Pleas were authorized, upon appHca- 
tion, to grant license to any person to keep a grocery and 
retail spirituous liquors, on the payment of from five to fifty 
dollars per annum, upon petition of twelve respectable 
householders of the vicinity of the grocery, and thirty days 
notice by posting advertisements of their intention to apply, 
and provided severe penalties for selling without such license. 

This statute authorized for the first time in Ohio, sales 
of liquors in less quantities than one quart at anyplace 
other than a tavern. All persons selling at groceries were 
subject to the same penalties as tavern keepers for permit- 
ing rioting, drunkenness or any kind of gambling in such 
establishments. 

March 3, 183 1, there was a general codification and re- 
vision of the statutes relating to the granting of licenses 
and regulating taverns, repealing the acts of Feb. 6, 1824, 
and Jan. 28, 1821. 

By this act, before a license could be obtained, the ap- 
plication must be supported by evidence of twenty days' 
notice having been given by advertisement of the in- 
tention to apply, and the court, upon being satisfied that 
the applicant sustained a good moral character, was autho- 
rized to grant it. It provided that ten or more respectable 
freeholders, residing in the neighborhood, might remon- 
strate, in writing, against the granting or renewing of any 
license. It also required the judge to give the act in his 
charge to the grand jury at each term of court. Any 
party selling any spirituous liquor, to be drank on the 
premises where sold, or in less quantity than one quart, 
without being licensed, was subject to a penalty. 

On Feb. 24, 1834, there was an act passed declaring the 
true intent and meaning of the act of 183 1, to be, that 
no persons, except those residing in cities, towns, or vil- 



I 



138 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

lages, or within one mile thereof, should be deemed to be 
tavern-keepers, unless such persons should keep for the 
purpose of sale, barter, or giving away gratuitously, any 
liquors, spirituous, vinous, or malt, or any mixture of any 
or all of the same. This act also provided that the penal- 
ty for selling without license, might be recovered in a civil 
action, in the name of the State of Ohio, before a justice 
of the peace or mayor, as well as by indictment, and give 
the right of appeal in such cases — thus giving for the first 
time a remedy for the violation of liquor statutes by civil 
action, or criminal, as the prosecutor might choose. 

An act of 1839 provided that no tavern Hcense should 
be construed to authorize the sale of liquors in less quan- 
tities than one quart, in any other than the common bar 
room, usually occupied as such for the reception of 
travelers. 

February 3, 1845, ^n act was passed, providing that 
whenever any remonstrance should be presented to the 
court against granting any tavern license, petitioned for, 
it should be the duty of the court to receive and consider 
the same, whether such remonstrance contained any state- 
ment of facts other than the general dissent of the remon- 
strants, or not, and the court might, in its discretion, grant 
or refuse the license prayed for. 

By this law of 1845, ^^i important and radical change 
was made, and the principle of local option in the sale of 
liquors recognized. This act was repealed by an act of 
February 8, 1847, ^^^ again revived by an act of February 
24, 1848. 

On February 8, 1847, 3-" ^ct was passed, leaving the 
question of the granting of licenses for the sale of intoxi- 
cating liquors, to be determined by the votes of the quali- 
fied electors of the townships. If a majority voted against 
license, it was unlawful for the court to grant to any per- 
son whatever, any license to sell in such township, during 
the next year. 

This act extended only to the counties of Cuyahoga, 
Delaware, Trumbull, Mahoning, Franklin, Geauga, Lake, 
Ashtabula, Preble, and Marion. 

March 12, 185 i, the same year that the present consti- 
tution was adopted, there was an act passed ''To restrain 
the sale of spirituous liquors, which may be said to be the 
foundation of the present liquor statutes. 



HISTORY OF TEMPERANCE LEGISLATION. 1 39 

Section one provided that if any person should sell, 
vend, or give away with intent to evade the provisions of 
the act, any spirituous liquors of any kind whatever, to be 
drank in the place where sold, or by less quantity than 
one quart, or to any person under sixteen, the person so 
offending, on conviction, shall be fined in any sum not less 
than five dollars, nor more than twenty-five dollars. It 
excepted from the operation of the statute, spirituous 
Hquors sold for medicinal and pharmaceutical purposes. 

The second section provided that all prosecutions under 
the act should be by indictment in the Court of Common 
Pleas, or before some justice of the peace, except that in 
any incorporated city or town, the prosecutions might be 
brought before the Mayor or other officer having judicial 
powers. Section three provided that in the prosecutions, 
it should not be necessary to allege or prove the kind of 
spirituous liquor sold, but simply that it was spirituous. 
Section four provided that all laws, or parts of laws, 
licensing the sale of spirituous liquors, inconsistent with 
the provisions of the act, were thereby repealed. This act 
took effect May, i, 185 1. 

January 19, 1853, the act granting hcense in certain 
cities, passed in March, 183 1, and the act amendatory 
thereof, passed March 7, 1835, were both repealed. They 
had been rendered nugatory by the adoption of the new 
constitution in 185 i, but had remained in the statutes un- 
til that time. 

On March 12, 1853, there was an act passed, ''Further 
defining the powers of trustees of townships," by which 
authority was given to township trustees, to suppress all 
houses, shops, or stores, known as places of habitual resort 
for tippling and intemperance, under such rules and ordi- 
nances, and by the imposition of such fines and penalties 
as they might deem proper, provided that no fine should 
exceed fifty dollars, nor any imprisonment in the county 
jail be for a longer time than twenty days. A majority of 
the trustees could pass these ordinances at any regular or 
special meeting of their board. They were required to 
pubHsh them four weeks in some paper published in the 
county. They were required to furnish the justices of the 
peace in their townships with certified copies of such ordi- 
nances, and it was made the duty of the justices to enforce 
them in such townships as they were established, upon 



I40 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

complaint filed, charging any person with a violation of 
them, by signing a warrant for the arrest of the defendant. 
It provided that the defendant might have the benefit of a 
trial by jury. It also gave the defendant the benefit of 
certiorari, error, or appeal to the Probate Court of the 
county. The provisions of the act did not extend to any 
city or incorporated village in the State. The party filing 
the complaint was required to give security for all costs 
that might accrue, should the defendant be found not 
guilty. 

This statute was the outgrowth of the dominant feeling 
throughout the State at that time, to have entire prohibition 
of the traffic, under the new constitution. Probably the 
„greater portion ofallthose who voted against license in 185 1, 
had done so with the belief and expectation, that should the 
vote on the question of license result against it, that there- 
after, no intoxicating liquor could be sold anywhere in the 
State. But in this behef, if entertained, they were des- 
tined to be disappointed. This statute was repealed the 
following year, probably on the ground of its unconstitu- 
tionality. 

May I, 1854, there was an act passed "to provide 
against the evils resulting from the sale of intoxicating 
liquors," that enlarged and rendered much more effective 
the statute of 185 1, heretofore referred to. It was by far 
the strongest statute on this question that had yet been 
passed since the adoption of the new constitution. It 
consisted of thirteen sections in all, the first six of which, 
and the ninth, are given in full. They were as follows : 

Sec. T. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of 
Ohio, That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons, by agent or 
otherwise, to sell, in any quantity, intoxicating liquors, to be drank in, 
upon, or about the building, or premises where sold, or to sell such 
intoxicating liquors, to be drank in any adjoining room, building or 
premises, or other place of public resort connected with said building. 

Sec. II. That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons, by 
agent or otherwise, to sell intoxicating liquors to minors, unless upon 
the written order of their parents, guardians, or family physician. 

Sec. III. That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons, by 
agent or otherwise, to sell intoxicating liquors, to persons intoxicated 
or who are in the habit of getting intoxicated. 

Sec. IV. That all places where intoxicating liquors are sold in 
violation of this act, shall be taken, held, and declared to be common 
nuisances, and all rooms, taverns, eating-houses, bazaars, restaurants, 
groceries, coffee-houses, cellars, or other places of public resort, where 
intoxicating liquors are sold in violation of this act. shall be shut up 



HISTORY OF TEMPERANCE LEGISLATION. I4I 

and abated as public nuisances, upon the conviction of the keeper 
thereof, who shall be punished as hereinafter provided. 

Sec. V. That it shall be unlawful tor any person to get intoxicated, 
and every person found in a state of intoxication, shall, upon conviction 
thereof, be fined in the sum of five dollars, and imprisoned in the coun- 
ty jail not more than three, nor less than one day, and pay the costs of 
prosecution. 

Sec. VI. That every person who shall, b"V*the sale of intoxicating 
liquors, contrary to this act, cauSe the intoxication of any other person, 
such person or persons shall be liable tor, and compelled to pay a 
reasonable compensation to any person who may take charge of, and 
provide for, such intoxicated person, and one dollar per day in addition 
thereto, for everj day such intoxicated person shall be kept, in conse 
quence of such intoxication, which suras may be recovered in a civil 
action, before any court havhig jurisdiction thereof 

Sec. IX. That the giving away of intoxicating liquors, or other shift 
or device to evade the provisions of this act, shall be deemed and held 
to be an unlawful selling within the provisions of this act. 

Sections seven and ten of the act of 1854, were amend- 
ed by act of April, 1870, taking effect July 4, of same 
year. They became known afterward throughout the 
State as the Adair Law, taking their name from the name 
of the Representative from Carroll county, who introduced 
the bill making the amendments in the House. They are 
given in the subjoined statutes in the next chapter. 

In April, 1875 there was an amendment added to sec- 
tion seven, greatly weakening it in effect, requiring that 
any person desiring to prevent the sale of liquor to any 
one, should give notice, either in writing or verbally, be- 
fore a witness, to the person selling, or the owner or lessor 
of the premises, wherein such intoxicating liquors were 
sold or given, or file with the township or corporation 
clerk in the township, village or city, notice to all liquor 
dealers not to sell to such person intoxicating liquors after 
ten days from date of filing such notice. 

This amendment, together with the amendment to sec- 
tion 199 of the Municipal Code the same year, related in 
the introductory chapter, did more to destroy the efficiency 
of the liquor statutes in the State, than had ever been ac- 
complished in that direction before. This legislation was 
as unexpected to the temperance people of Ohio, as it was 
surprising, following as it did so closely in the wake of 
the women's crusade movement. 

In April, 1874, there was an act passed, protecting the 
inmates of the Ohio Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans' Home 
and those Hving at the Reform Farm, from the sales ot 
intoxicating liquor. 



142 ■ LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

THE LIQUOR STATUTES AS NOW IN FORCE IN OHIO. 

ALL of these sections are taken from the revised Stat- 
utes of Ohio, as codified in 1879. They all took 
effect January i, 1880. 

Sec. 6813. Whoever, while in a state of intoxication, 
prescribes or administers any poison, drug, or medicine to 
another, which endangers the life of such other person, 
shall be fined not exceeding one hundred dollars, and im- 
prisoned not more than twenty days. 

Sec. 6940. Whoever is found in a state of intoxica 
tion, shall be fined five dollars. 

Sec. 6941. Whoever sells intoxicating liquors to be 
drank in, upon, or about, the building or premises where 
sold, or in any adjoining room, building, or premises, or 
other place of public resort connected therewith, or sells 
intoxicating liquors to a minor except upon the written 
order of his parent, guardian, or family physician, or to a 
person intoxicated, or in the habit of getting intoxicated, 
shall be fined not more than fifty nor less than five dollars, 
or imprisoned not more than thirty nor less than ten 
days. 

Sec. 6942. A keeper of a place where intoxicating 
liquors are sold in violation of law, shall be fined not 
more than one hundred, nor less than fifty dollars, or im- 
prisoned not more than thirty nor less than ten days, or 
both ; and upon conviction of such keeper, the place where 
such liquor is sold shall be deemed to be a common nui- 
sance, and the court shall order him to shut up and abate the 
same, unless he makes it appear to the court that he does 
not then sell liquor therein in violation of law, or gives 
bond, payable to the State of Ohio, in the sum of one 
thousand dollars, with sureties to the acceptance of the 
court, that he will not sell liquor therein in violation of 
law, and will pay all fines, costs, and damages assessed 
against him for violation of the laws relating to the sale 
of intoxicating liquor ; the provisions of the last section 
concerning the sale of intoxicating liquors to be drank at 
the place where sold, and this section, do not extend to 
the sale of wine manufactured of the pure juice of the 



LIQUOR STATLTES NOW IN FORCE. I43 

grape cultivated in this State, or beer, ale or cider ; and 
the giving away of intoxicating liquor, or other shift or 
device to evade the provisions of this and the last section, 
shall be deemed and held to be unlawful selling. 

Sec. 6943. Whoever buys for or furnishes to a person 
who is at the time intoxicated, or in the habit of getting 
intoxicated, any intoxicating liquor, or buys for or fur- 
nishes to a minor, to be drank by such minor, any intoxi- 
cating liquor, unless given by a physician in the regular 
line of his practice, shall be fined not more than one hun- 
dred nor less than ten dollars, or imprisoned not more 
than thirty nor less than ten day.s, or both. 

Sec. 6944. Whoever sells or barters any spirituous 
liquors on the first day of the week, commonly called 
Sunday, shall be fined not more than five dollars. 

Sec. 6945. Whoever sells, or exposes for sale, gives, 
barters, or in any other way disposes of any spirituous or 
other liquors, or any articles of traffic whatsoever, at any 
place at or within the distance of four miles from the 
place where any religious society or assemblage of people 
is collected, or collecting together, for religious worship, 
shall be fined not more than one hundred nor less than ten 
dollars. This section does not extend to tavern keepers 
exercising their calling, or distillers, manufacturers, or 
others prosecuting their regular trades at their places of 
business, nor to any person disposing of any ordinary ar- 
ticle of provisions, excepting spirituous liquors, at his 
residence, nor to any person having a permit from the 
trustees or managers of any such religious^society or as- 
semblage, to sell provisions for the supply of persons at- 
tending such religious worship, their horses or cattle, and 
who is observing the regulations of such society or assem- 
blage, and the laws of the State. 

Sec. 6946. Whoever sells intoxicating liquors at, or 
within twelve hundred yards of, the administration or main 
central building of the Ohio Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans' 
Home, or within two miles of the boundary lines of the 
Ohio Reform Farm, located south of Lancaster, Fairfield 
county, or within two miles of the place where any Agri- 
cultural Fair is being held, shall be fined not more than 
one hundred nor less than ten dollars, or imprisoned not 
more than thirty days, or both : and, on conviction of the 
owner or keeper thereof, the place wherein such intoxica- 



144 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

ting liquors are sold, may, by order of the Court, be shut, 
and abated as a nuisance. 

Sec. 6947. Whoever conveys into a jail any spirituous 
or malt liquor, or wine, or having charge of a jail, know- 
ingly permits a prisoner confined therein to receive any 
such liquor, except the same be prescribed by a physician 
as medicine for a prisoner therein, shall be fined not more 
than one hundred nor less than ten dollars, or imprison- 
ment not more than thirty days nor less than ten days. 

Sec. 6948. Whoever sells, or gives away, any spiritu- 
ous, or malt liquors, on any election day, or being the 
keeper of a place where any liquors are habitually sold and 
drank, fails on any election day to keep the same closed, 
shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars, and im- 
prisoned not more than ten days. 

Sec. 6949. Whoever, being engaged in the manufac- 
ture and sale of intoxicating Hquor, fails to brand on each 
package, containing the same, the name of the person 
or company manufacturing, rectifying, or preparing 
the same, and also the words ** containing no poisonous 
drug, or other added poison," shall be fined not more than 
one thousand dollars, and imprisoned not more than six 
months nor less than one month. 

Sec. 6950. Whoever adulterates except for medicinal 
purposes any spirituous or alcoholic liquors, by mixing the 
same with any substance, or sells or offers to sell any 
such liquor, knowing the same to be thus adulterated, or 
imports into this State, and sells or offers to sell, any such 
liquor knowing the same to be thus adulterated, and not 
inspected as required by law, shall be fined not more than 
five hundred dollars, and be imprisoned not more than 
thirty nor less than ten days. 

Sec. 7410. No person shall be appointed to office at the 
penitentiary, or be employed thereat on behalf of the State, 
who is ^ * * >i< * * * jj^ ^j^e 

habit of using intoxicating liquors ; and a single act of in- 
toxication shall justify a removal or discharge. 

Sec. 7135. The following form of affidavit in criminal 
proceedings, before justices of the peace or mayors under 
sections 6941, to 6948, inclusive, when applicable, but 
may be varied to suit the nature of the case, namely : 

The State of OMo, County, s. s., before me, A. B. a justice of the 

peace for said countj^ [or Mai/or of, etc., as the casemay he,'] personally 



LIQUOR STATUTES NOW IN FORCE. 1 45 

came CD., who being duly sworn according to law, deposeth and saith, that 

upon or about the day of at the county of aforesaid 

E. F., did sell intoxicating liquors to one G. H., to be drank in the 
place where sold, [or to G H., a minor, etc., or a person intoxicated, 
or in the habit of getting intoxicated^ as the case may 6e.] or is the 
keeper of a room or tavern, [as the case maxj 5e,] where intoxicating 
liquors are sold in violation of the law, and further saith not. 

Signed, C. D. 

Sworn to and subscribed, before me, this day of A.D., 

A. B., Justice of the Peace, [or Mayor, ect.] 

Sec. 3712. A judge of any court, sheriff, coroner, jus- 
tice of the peace of the proper township, or the constables 
specially appointed, shall, upon view or information, with- 
out warrant, apprehend any person selling intoxicating 
liquors in violation of law, at or within two miles of the 
place where an agricultural fair is being held, and seize the 
booth, tent, wagon, carriage, stand, vessel or boat, at or 
from which such liquors are being sold, and convey the 
same to a place of safe keeping, and take the person so of- 
fending, before some officer having competent jurisdiction, 
together with an inventory of the things so seized, and the 
officer before whom such offender is brought, shall proceed 
forthwith to inquire into the truth of the accusation, and 
proceed as provided by law. 

Sec. 3713. The articles so seized shall be bound for the 
payment of all fines and costs assessed against the accused 
in the proceeding, including the necessary expenses of 
seizing and detaining the same, and shall remain in the 
possession of the officer who makes the seizure until the 
determination of the prosecution, and may be sold on pro- 
cess issued therein against the accused. 

Sec. 4330. Any person who sells, or offers to sell any 
spirituous liquors, not inspected as herein provided shall 
be fined in any sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, 
nor less than one hundred dollars, and imprisoned in the 
jail of the county not more than thirty, nor less than ten 
days. 

The following sections from 4356 to 4364 are what is 
known as the Adair Law: 

Sec. 4356. Whoever, by the sale of intoxicating liquors, 
contrary to law, causes the intoxication of another person, 
shall be liable for, and compelled to pay a reasonable com- 
pensation to any person who may take charge of, and pro- 
vide for, such intoxicated person, and one dollar per day 

19 



I 



146 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

in addition thereto, for every day such intoxicated person 
may be kept, in consequence of such intoxication, which 
sum may be recovered in a civil action, before any Court 
having jurisdiction thereof. 

Sec. 4357. Every husband, wife, child, parent, guard- 
ian, employer, or other person injured in person or proper- 
ty, or means of support, by any intoxicated person, or in 
consequence of the intoxication, habitual or otherwise, of 
any person, shall, after the giving and during the existence 
of the notice provided for in the next section, have a right 
of action in his or her name, severally or jointly, against 
any person or persons who, by selling or giving intoxicat- 
ing liquors, have caused the intoxication, in whole or in 
part, of such person ; and the owner of any building or 
premises, and the person renting or leasing the same, hav- 
ing knowledge that intoxicating liquors are to be sold 
therein, in violation of law, or having leased the same for 
other purposes, knowingly permit intoxicating liquors to 
be sold therein, that have caused the intoxication, in whole 
or in part, of such person, shall be liable severally or joint- 
ly with the person or persons selling or giving intoxicating 
liquor as aforesaid for all damages sustained, as well as ex- 
emplary damages. 

Sec. 4358. Such husband, wife, child, parent, guard- 
ian, or other interested person liable to be injured by any 
sale of intoxicating liquors to any person, and desiring to 
prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors to such person, 
shall give notice either verbally or in writing, before a wit- 
ness, to the person or persons so selling or giving the in- 
toxicating Hquors, or to the owner or lessor of the premises 
wherein such intoxicating liquors are given or sold, or file 
with the township or corporation clerk in the township or 
corporation wherein such intoxicating liquors may be sold, 
notice to all liquor dealers not to sell to such person any 
intoxicating liquors from and after ten days from the date 
of so filing such notice. 

Sec. 4359. Such notice filed with such clerk, shall be 
entered by him in a book to be kept for such purpose, 
which shall be open for the inspection of all persons in- 
terested ; and any notice entered in such book shall, by 
the officer having charge of the same, be erased and so 
obliterated as not to be legible upon the demand of the 



LIQUOR STATUTES NOW IN FORCE. I47 

person by whom such notice was filed, and thereafter such 
notice shall cease and end. 

Sec. 4360. Such notice, whether served personally or 
filed with the clerk, as aforesaid, shall during its existence, 
inure to the benefit of all persons interested, the same as 
if a notice had been served by each ; and if any clerk fail 
or refuse to make such record as herein provided, he shall 
be fined not less than five dollars, and the same shall work 
a forfeiture of his office. 

Sec. 4361. A married woman shall have the same 
right to bring suits and control the same, and the amount 
recovered, as a femme sole ; all damages recovered by a 
minor under this chapter shall be paid either to such 
minor, or to his or her parent, guardian, or next friend, as 
the court shall direct ; the unlawful sale or giving away of 
intoxicating liquors shall work a forfeiture of all rights of 
the lessee or tenant under any lease or contract of rent 
upon premises where such unlawful sale or giving away 
takes place; and all suits for damages under this chapter 
shall be by civil action in any court having jurisdiction 
thereof. 

Sec. 4362. A saloon keeper, grocer, or other person, 
who publishes the fact that any notice has been given, as 
provided in the foregoing sections, by posting such 
notices in any saloon, grocery, or other place, or by print- 
ing or causing the same to be printed in any newspaper, 
circular or in any other way gives publicity to the fact that 
such notice has been given, shall be fined not less than ten 
nor more than fifty dollars. 

Sec. 4363. For all fines, costs, and damages assessed 
against any person, in consequence of the sale of intoxica- 
ting liquors, as provided in the foregoing sections, the 
real estate and personal property of each person, of every 
kind, without exception or exemption, except under section 
fifty-four himdred and thirty^ and such fines, costs, and 
damages, shall be a lein upon such real estate until paid. 

Sec. 4364. If a person rent or lease to another, any 
building or premises to be used or occupied, in whole or 
in part, for the sale of intoxicating liquors, or permits the 
same to be used or occupied, in whole or in part, such 
building or premises so leased, used or occupied, in 
whole or in part, such building or premises so leased, 
used or occupied, shall be held liable for, and may be sold 



148 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

to pay all fines, costs, and damages, assessed against any 
person occupying the same ; proceedings may be had to 
subject the same to the payment of any such fine and costs 
assessed or judgment recovered, or any part thereof, which 
remain unpaid, either before or after execution issues 
against the property of the person against whom such fine 
and costs or judgment have been adjudged or assessed ; 
when execution issues against the property so leased or 
rented, the officer shall proceed to satisfy the same out of 
the building or premises so leased or occupied ; if such 
building or premises belong to a minor, insane person, or 
idiot, his guardian having control thereof, shall be liable, 
and account to his ward for all damages on account of such 
use and occupation, and the liabilities for the fines, costs, 
and damages aforesaid ; and all contracts whereby any 
building or premises are rented or leased, and the same 
used or occupied, in whole or in part, for the sale of in- 
toxicating Hquors, shall be void, and the lessor shall, on 
and after selling or giving intoxicating liquors as aforesaid, 
shall be considered and held to be in possession of such 
building or premises. 



CHAPTER XXIV. 

TAXATION OF LIQUORS, BRIEFLY CONSIDERED. 

OWING to the increase of saloons in the cities and vil- 
lages, by reason of the absence of any statute ordi- 
nances by which the sales of ale, beer, and wine can be 
restrained or prohibited, the question of taxing the business 
has received much consideration in the last few years, by 
thoughtful minds. 

Many regard the question of taxation as being so nearly 
akin to that of license, that they cannot draw the line of 
distinction between them. The question of license or no 
license, was submitted to the electors of Ohio, in 1874, 
when the proposed new constitution was submitted. 
Thirty-three counties voted for license, and fifty-five 



TAXATION OF LIQUORS. 1 49 

against. The whole vote of the State was : For Hcense 
172,252, against, 179,538. Had the question of taxing 
the business of hquor selHng been directly submitted, at 
that time, giving authority to village and city councils to 
tax the business, it might have shared the same fate. But 
that is not known. 

There was a movement made in Cincinnati, in the early 
part of 1879, ^^^ ^y Rev. J. M. Walden and others, fav- 
oring the question, and with a view of calling upon the 
Legislature for appropriate legislation upon the subject, 
a meeting was held in that city, and the question was dis- 
cussed. A committee was appointed to wait upon the author 
of H. B. 619 then pending, with a view of securing an amend- 
ment to one of the sections of that bill, providing that 
when the result of the vote in any township should be in 
favor of the sale of intoxicating liquor, beer, ale, and wine, 
the business might then be taxed. 

About that time, Mr. Dodds, one of the representatives 
from Hamilton county, introduced in the House of Rep- 
sentatives the following bill, known as H. B. 753: 

"Sec. I. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the 
State of Ohio, That the councils of cities of the first class 
may provide by ordinance for imposing a tax upon the 
business of seUing spirituous, vinous, and malt Hquors, or 
either of them, and for the collection thereof, with proper 
penalties for non-payment. 

*' Sec. 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from 
and after its passage." 

It was drawn so as to apply only to Cincinnati. It 
passed its first and second readings and through the appro- 
priate committee, and came up in the House for a third 
reading on Febuary 28, and was discussed. 

Pending the discussion, Mr. Townsend, of Athens, 
moved to amend it, so as to make its provisions apply to 
all the cities, incorporated villages and hamlets in the State, 
which was agreed to by yeas 36, nays 30. 

A vote was afterward taken on the passage of the bill as 



150 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

amended, which was disagreed to by yeas 44, nays 44, 
fifty-six votes being necessary to its passage. 

Some of the best legal authorities in the State have 
decided that the constitution does not prohibit the levying 
of special taxes on any property, occupation, profession or 
calling. This question is not regarded as a temperance 
question by some, but a question of revenue. 

Under the laws as they now are, ale, wine and beer are 
on the free list so far as their sale, or revenue therefrom is 
concerned. There is no revenue on the sale of whisky 
accruing to the State. 

This question received considerable attention in the 
columns of the Cincinnati Gazette in October last. Many 
liquor sellers were interviewed and the result showed that 
they were about equally divided on the question, but the 
manufacturers were reticent. 

In the interviews, Mr. Geffroy, of the Gibson House 
in Cincinnati, was reported as follows : 

'' ' Tax them !" said he ; *' I am in favor of the biggest 
kind of a tax. I think the heavier the license the better. 
That (pointing to the bar-room) is the only curse of this 
house. You see I speak plainly, but I believe in telling 
the truth. I am in favor of a tax that would confine the 
business to those who are competent to control it. I am 
in favor of the Gibson, the Grand, the Burnett, and the 
Emery being taxed ^^ 1,500 or ^^2,000 a year, and the 
others in proportion, so that the necessary revenue may be 
raised out of a few, and the rest suppressed.' " 

The editor of the Cincinnati Gazette addressed a letter 
to Messrs. Matthews, Ramsey and Matthews, attorneys 
of Cincinnati, on the question, asking for a legal opinion on 
the subject, and for which the Gazette paid them a fee. It 
ehcited the following reply : 

Cincinnati, Oct. 25, 1879. 
To the Editor of the CAncmnati Gazette : 

In reply to your note, this date, we beg to advise you 



CONCLUSION. 151 

that a law imposing a specific tax upon the business of sell- 
ing intoxicating liquors would be constitutional. 

Such a law would be a tax upon a business, and would 
not be a license. It would not be a tax upon property, and, 
therefore, would not be open to the objection of want of 
uniformity required by section 12, article 2, of the Con- 
stitution. 

Such a tax should be imposed for special purposes (ex 
gr., police, prison, etc., purposes), and should set forth 
the objects distinctly, as required by section 5, article 12. 

The principles upon which suchftax could be sustained 
are set forth in the decision of the case of Meyer, Treas- 
urer, vs. the Western Union Telegraph Co., 28th Ohio St. 
Rep., 521. Very truly yours, 

Matthews, Ramsey & Matthews. 

This question is an open one as yet. It is a question 
that may yet claim the earnest thought of legislative 
bodies. The public mind is yet unsettled as to what is 
proper to be done. The government, by legislation re- 
garded as legitimate by many, taxes the manufacture of 
liquor, and thereby derives a large revenue from it, and 
gives license to the seller at his place of business. Under 
it all, lies a larger question of public morals, which should 
interest every good citizen. 

It would be gratifying to discuss this question much 
further, but it cannot be done within the limit of space 
here allowed. 



CHAPTER XVII. 

CONCLUSION. 

AS said in the preface of this little book, its size was 
limited, that the price of it might be kept within 
the reach of any one who had a desire to read it. Its 
author has been desirous of affording an opportunity to any 
one interested, to know something of what has been said 
on the question of local option in Ohio, though meagre it 



152 LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO. 

may be, and to afford an opportunity for information on 
the question of temperance legislation. There are many 
points he desired to discuss that have not been touched 
upon. 

In the Appendix, annexed, there is published the full 
text of the Remonstrance of the Ohio Liquor Dealers' 
Protective Association, and the ''Eylar Bill" of last 
winter, which met with some favor at ■ the time, but 
which was permitted by its author to sleep in the arms of 
the temperance committee, the sleep of death. 

There also will be found the full text of the Pennsylvania 
Local Option License Statute, passed March 27, 1872, and 
afterward repealed by the liquor power of that state. 

Also the full texts of the "Thompson Bill," allowing wo- 
men the right of petition, and the ''Stewart Bill," both of 
which were reported to the Mass Convention that met at 
Columbus, January i, 1880, the latter by a majority report, 
the other by a minority report of the committee appointed 
to draft a biU, and both of which, after much discussion in 
the convention, were referred to a committee to report to 
the Legislature. Neither of these bills have at the present 
writing been introduced in the legislature, consequently 
are not pending. They are given here for the information 
of such as may be interested. 

H. B. No. 114, now pending in the Legislature, before 
the committee on temperance, is not given, for the reason 
that it is the same as H. B. 619, of last year, (known as the 
Quinby Bill,) except that it permits sales of wine for sacra- 
mental, and liquor for mechanical purposes. It is now 
known as the Bishop Bill, having been introduced in the 
House by the representative from Clermont county. The 
text of it will be found on page twelve of this work. 

If the temperance people of Ohio expect to secure addi- 
tional temperance legislation, it is very desirable, if not ab- 
solutely essential that they should be practically united in 
their demands. That there are grievances of the people, 



CONCLUSION. 153 

from the terrible evils of intemperance that need redress, 
no well informed person can longer question. But so long 
as there is discord, dissensions and bickerings among them 
as to what form of legislation is needed, who can hope for 
success? Some seem unwilling to have anything less than 
entire prohibition at one step, forgetting, apparently, that 
almost all reforms in legislation are brought about step by 
step. 

Could a local option temperance law be secured for the 
townships, leaving it to the people of the townships to call 
it into operation and enforce it, who can doubt that the 
consequent agitation of the question would tend very 
largely to educate the people thereon, and create a healthly 
growth of sentiment toward final prohibition. 

Why load down local option with any other question ? 
Let all the temperance people unite upon that platform, 
and make one united, earnest effort, and their demands 
will be heeded. 



20 



APPENDIX. 



A Bill proposed by Hon. G. T. Stewart, and adopted 
as the Majority Report of the Committee on Bills of the 
Mass Convention, held at Columbus, January i, 1880: 

THE HOME PROTECTION LAW. 

An Act to protect the homes of the people, and to provide against the 
evils resulting from the traffic in intoxicating liquors. 
Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of 
Ohio, That it shall be lawful for all citizens of this State, without dis- 
tinction of sex, having the qualifications of electors for the State and 
County officers, except that that there shall be no disqualification there- 
in because of sex, to meet where they severally reside, on the first Mon- 
day of May, A. D. 1880, at the usual places of holding elections there, 
for State and County officers, and to vote for or against, the legal sup- 
pression of the traffic in intoxicating liquors for use as a laeverage ; and 
at such special election, all voting in favor of such suppression of said 
traffic, shall have printed or written upon their ballots, the words, ''Home 
Protection Against the Evils of the Liquor Traffic, Yes f' and those 
voting against such suppression of said traffic, shall have printed or 
written upon their ballots, the words, " IIo7ne Protection Against the 
Evils of the Liquor Traffic, No;" and if, at said special election, a 
majority of the votes so cast in this State, shall be so given in favor of said 
suppression of the liquor traffic, then it shall be unlawful, in every part of 
this State, from and after the fourth day of July, A. D. 1880, to sell, 
barter, give, buy or procure for, or furnish to, any person or persons, any 
intoxicating liquor, except as authorized and provided for by this act. 

And if at said special election, a majority of the votes so cast in this 
State, shall not be in favor of such suppression of the liquor traffic, but 
in any county, or counties, a majority of the votes there cast shall be so 
given in favor of such suppression of the liquor traffic, then in all said 
county or counties, so voting in favor of such suppression, it shall be un- 
lawful under the provisions of this act, to sell, barter, give, buy, or pro- 
cure for, or furnish to any person or persons, any intoxicating liquor, 
except as authorized and provided for by this act. 

And if at said special election, a majority of the votes so cast in any 
county and counties, shall be against such suppression of the liquor 
traffic, but in any township, city, incorporated village, ward, or voting 
precinct, where such election is held, in the said last mentioned county 
or counties, a majority of voters there cast shall be so given in favor of 
such suppression of the liquor traffic, then in every such township, city, 
incorporated village, ward or voting precinct, so voting in favor of such 
suppression of the liquor traffic, in each aud all of said last mentioned 
county or counties, it shall be unlawful under the provisions of this act, 
to sell, barter, give, buy or procure for, or furnish to any person or per- 
sons any intoxicating liquor, except as authorized and provided for by 
this act. 



APPENDIX. 155 

Sec. 2. That official proclamation and advertisement of said special 
election shall be given b}^ the SheriflFs of all counties in the State, for the 
same time and in the same manner as for the election of State and 
County officers; arid said election shall be conducted by the same judges 
and clerks and in the same manner as the latter, and shall be subject to 
a'l requirements and penalties of the law now in force regulating the 
election of State and County officers, in the charge of the ballot boxes, 
the receiving, counting, return and record of the votes, and payment 
of the expenses thereof, and in all other respects, so far as applicable, 
except that no person shall be debarred from voting at the same because 
of sex. 

Sec. 3. All distilled and spirituous liquors, ale, porter, strong beer, 
lager beer, fermented wine, fprmeiited cider, cordial, bitters and other 
liquors containing alcohol, b}^ whatever name or description known, shall 
be considered intoxicating liquors within the meaning of this act; and the 
same term shall be held to include all mixed liquor of which part is in- 
toxicating. 

Sec. 4. The trustees of any township, for said township, or any part 
thereof, not included within the incorporated limits of a cit}' or incorpor- 
ated village, and the Mayor and council of any city, or incorporated vil- 
lage where said traffic is bj^ said vote so suppressed, may on the first Mon- 
day of June annually, or so soon thereafter as may be convenient, pur- 
chase such quantity of pure and unadulterated intoxicating liquors as they 
^may deem necessary, to be sold strictly under and in pursuance of the 
provisions of this act ; and they shall appoint some suitable person as 
the agent of said township, city, or village, to sell the same at some 
convenient place within said township, or part thereof, city or village, 
to be used for manufacturing, mechanical, scientific, and medicinal pur- 
poses, and no other; and no intoxicating liquors, shall be at any time 
or place, purchased or procured, sold or furnished therein, except for or 
b3'- the said agent ; and such agent shall receive such compensation for 
his services, and in the sale of such liquors, shall conform to such regu- 
lations, not inconsistent with law, as the board appointing him shall pre- 
scribe ; and he shall hold his appointment one year, unless sooner 
removed by them or their successors in office. Vacancies occuring during 
the year shall be filled in the same manner as such original appointments 
are made. No such agent shall have any interest in said liquors, or in 
the profit of the sale thereof. 

Sec. 5, Such agent shall receive a certificate from the board by which 
he is appointed, authorizing him as the agent of such township, city, or 
village, to sell intoxicating liquors in such township or part of township, 
city, or village, for manufacturing, mechanical, scientific, and medicinal 
purposes only; but such certificate shall not be delivered to the person 
so appointed until he shall have executed and delivered to said board a 
bond, with two good and sufficient sureties to be approved by said board 
in the sum of not less than one thousand dollars, in substance as follwos: 

Know aU men, that we , as principal, and , as 

sureties, are held and firmly bound unto the city, (or incorporated vil- 
lage, or trustees of the township of) , in the sum of 

dollars, to be paid to said obligee (or obligees), and to which payment we 
bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators firmly by these 

presents. Signed, sealed with our seals, and dated this — day of . A. 

D. . 

The conditions of this obligation are such that, whereas, the above 

named has been duly appointed an agent for the said 

township, (city or village,) to sell intoxicating liquors for manufacturing, 



156 APPENDIX. 

mechanical, scientific and medicinal purposes and no other, until the — 

day of , A. D. , unless removed from said agency. Now if the 

said , shall in all respects conform to the provisions of the 

law relating to the business for which he is appointed, and to such regu- 
lation as now are, or shall be from time to time, established by the board 
making his appointment, then this obligation shall be void but otherwise 
shall remain in full force. * (Seal and Signatures.) 

The trustees of any township, and the Mayor and council of any city 
or village, to whom such bond is given, for any breach thereof, shall 
cause a suit to be commenced and prosecuted to final judgment, unless 
paid in full with costs. 

Sec. 6. Said agent shall keep a book and enter therein the date of 
every sale made by him, the person to whom sold, the kind, quantity and 
price thereof, and the purpose for which it was sold, which book shall at 
all times within the usual hours of business, be open for public inspec- 
tion. Whoever purchasing such liquor of said agent, intentionally 
makes a false statement as to its purpose or use, shall for the first offense 
be fined nut less than twenty nor more than one hundred dollars, and for 
the second and every succeeding offense, shall be so fined and also im- 
prisoned not less than ten nor more than thirty days. 

Sec. 7. Whoever by himself or his clerk, servant, agent, or employee, 
directly or indirectly, sells, barters, gives away, buys or procures for, 
or furnishes to any person or persons, any intoxicating liquor, except as 
authorized and provided for by this act, shall for the first offense, be 
fined not less than twenty nor more than one hundred dollars; and for 
the second offense shall be so fined, and shall also be imprisoned not 
less than ten nor more than thirty days, and for the third offense, shall 
be so fined, and also imprisoned not less than thirty days, nor more than 
three months. 

Sec. 8. Whoever, by himself, or his clerk, servant, agent or employee, 
is a common seller ol intoxicating liquors, except as authorized and pro- 
vided by this act, or keeps any place where the same are sold, bartered, 
given, or furnished in violation of this act, or being the owner of such 
place, knowingly permits such offense, shall be fined not less than fifty 
dollars, nor more than two hundred dollars, and shall be imprisoned not 
less than twenty nor more than sixty days, and on such conviction of the 
keeper or owner of such place, the Court, as part of the sentence, shall 
order said place to be shut up and abated as a common nuisance. 

Sec. 9. Whoever, by his clerk, agent, or employee, or by himself in 
the employment of, or on the premises of another, keeps, or being the 
owner thereof knowingly permits to be kept, any building, room, or place 
called a ciub room, or by any other name, and which is or shall be used 
as the resort of two or more persons for drinking intoxicating liquors, as 
a beverage, except his private dwelling, or rooms occupied by his family; 
or whoever shall bring into this State, or carry from place to place with- 
in the State, any intoxicating liquor, with intent to sell or dispose of the 
same, by himself, or to have the ?ame sold or disposed of by any other 
person or persons, or in violation of this act, or having reasonable cause 
to believe that the same is intended to be thus sold or disposed of, shall 
for the first offense be fined not less than twenty dollars, nor more than a 
hundred dollars; and for the second offense, shall be so fined and also be 
imprisoned not less than ten nor more than thirty days. 

Sec. 10. Whoever shall deposit, or have in his possession, at any place, 
any intoxicating liquor, with the intent to sell the same, or with intent 
that the same shall be sold by any person, or to aid or assist any person 
in such sale, in violation of this act, shall for the first offense, be fined 



APPENDIX. 157 

not less thad ten nor more than fifty dollars ; and tor a second offense, 
shall be so fined, and imprisoned not less than ten nor more than thirty 
days. 

Sec. 11. If any prosecuting attorney, justice of the peace, mayor, or 
judicial, police or other officer, havin^j; knowledge or notice of any pre- 
vious conviction of any person accused of violatina: the provisions of this 
act, and being charged with the duty of preparing any complaint, infor- 
mation, warrant, or indictment against such person, shall fail to allege 
such previous conviction thereon ; or after an information filed or in- 
dictment found in any Court, if the prosecuting attorney shall enter ?ioZZe 
prosequi, dismiss, or fail to prosecute the same except by special order 
of the Court; or if any officer charged with any duty under this act shall 
fail to perform the same ; such prosecuting attorney, justice of the peace, 
mayor, judicial, police, or other officer, shall be fined not less than twenty 
nor more than one hundred dollars. 

Sec. 12. No person engaged in the unlawful traffic in intoxicating 
liquors shall be competent to sit in any jury upon any case arising under 
this act; and when information shall be communicated to the Court, that 
any member of any panel is engaged in such traffic, or that he is believed 
to be so engaged, the Court shall inquire of the juryman of whom such 
belief is entertained, as to the fact, and no answer which he shall make 
shall be used against him in any case arising under this act; if he 
answers falsely, he shall be incapable of serving on any jury in this 
State; but he may decline to answer, in which case, he shall be dis- 
charged b}" the Court from all further attendance as a juryman. 

Sec. 13. Whenever an unlawful sale is alleged, and a delivery is 
proved, of intoxicating liquors, it shall not be necessary to prove a pay- 
ment, but such delivery shall be sufficient evidence of sale. A partner in 
business shall be liable for the unlawful keeping or selling of his co-part- 
ner done in the co-partnership business, or by anj^ other person, in any 
shop, store, or other place of business, of such co-partnership, vith his 
knowledge or assent. A principal and his agent, clerk, servant and em- 
ployee, and a landlord and his tenant, may all be included in the same 
complaint, indictment, information, and process. 

Sec. 14. If any person is found in a state of intoxication, he shall be 
taken into custody, with or without a warrant, by any sheriff, constable, 
or police officer, and shall be detained in some proper place, until in the 
opinion of such officer, he is so far recovered from his i' toxication as to 
render it proper, when such officer shall take him before some justice 
of the peace, mayor or police magistrate in the place where he has been 
found, and shall there make a complaint against him for said offense of 
drunkenness; and if such person then discloses fully the name or names 
of the person or persons of whom, and the time, place and manner, in 
which the liquor causing his intoxication, was procured, on oath admin- 
istered to him by such justice, mayor, or magistrate, and who shall in- 
quire of him as to all the facts ; and if it appears from such examination 
that an offense has been committed under the provisions of this act. such 
officer shall file and prosecute his complaint before such justice, mayor, 
or magistrate, against the person or persons who appear to have been 
guilty thereof, and said complaint of drunkenness shall be discontinued ; 
but if the person so arrested shall refuse to disclose said names and facts, 
said officer shall proceed with said complaint against him for drunken- 
ness, according to law. 

Sec. 15. All ictoxicating liquors kept for sale, and the implements 
and vessels used in selling and keeping the same, contrary to this act, 
are declared to be common nuisances; and shall be p?'ma/acze evidence 



158 APPENDIX. 

of unlawful sale, against any person or persons in whose possession they 
are found. 

Sec. 16. The form of affidavit in section 7135, of the Revised Statutes 
of Ohio, when applicable, shall be sufficient in criminal proceedings un- 
der this act, before justices of the peace, mayors and police magistrates, 
but may be varied to suit the nature of the case ; and said justices, 
mayors and magistrates, shall issue warrants to search any house or 
place, for intoxicating liquors, kept or concealed for Durposes contrary 
to this act ; but there must be first filed with such officer, an affidavit, 
particularly describing the house or place to be searched, the person to 
be seized, if an arrest is to be made, and that the affiant believes, and 
has good reason to believe, that intoxicating liquors are there kept or 
concealed, for purposes contrary to law. 

Such warrant sha'l be substantially in thje form and shall be executed 
and returned, and the liquors found shall be disposed of as provided in 
sections 7123, 7124 and 7125, of the Revised Statutes of Ohio; and when 
proved to have been kept or concealed for illicit purposes, the liquors 
shall be destroyed, under the direction of the Court. 

Sec. 17. Prosecutions under this act shall be by complaint before the 
police magistrate, mayor of the city or village, or any justice of the peace 
of the county where the offense was committed, or by indictment, or in- 
formation in the proper Court of the county having jurisdiction in crim- 
inal cases; und such magistrate, mayor, or justice, on said complaint 
may proceed to final sentence and execution. 

Sec. 18. For all penalties and costs assessed against any person orper- 
sons, for the violation of this act, the real estate and personal property ot 
such person or persons, of every kind without exemption from execution, 
shall be liable for the payment thereof, and the same shall be a lien upon 
such real estate from the date when rendered, until paid. 

If any person shall rent or lease any building or premises to be used 
or occupied in whole or in part, for the sale of intoxicating liquors, or 
shall permit the same to be used or occupied, in whole or in part, such 
building or premises shall be held liable for, and may be sold to pay, all 
fines and costs assessed against the person or persons so using or oceu- 
pjdng the same, either before or after execution against the property of 
such person or persons ; and when execution or other process shall issue 
against the property so leased or rented, the officer holding the same, 
shall proceed to satisfy it out of said property ; and in case such buiMing 
or premises, belongs to a minor, insane person or idiot, the guardian of 
such, having control of said property, shall be liable, and shall account 
to his or her ward for all damages resulting from such use and occupation 
of the same; and all contracts whereby any building or premises shall be 
rented or leased and the same shall be used or occupied in whole or in 
part, for the sale of intoxicating liquors in violation of this statute, shall 
be void, and a transcript of any judgment for fines and costs assessed by 
any justice of the peace, mayor, or police magistrate, under this act, 
may be filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of 
the county, where the same is rendered, and shall become a lien on all 
real estate, within such county, of the person or persons against whom 
the same is rendered, as now provided by law in civil cases. 

Sec. 19. This act shall not be construed to repeal or affect any gener- 
al or special law in force, prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors. 

Sec. 20. This act shall take eflPect and be in force immediately after 
its passage. 



APPENDIX. 159 

The following is a Bill prepared by the Hon. Judge 
Thompson, and adopted as the minority report of the 
Committee on Bills, of the Mass Convention, held at 
Columbus, January i, 1880: 



To Regulate the Sale of Intoxicatino: Liquors in the State of Ohio. 

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of 
Ohio, That it shall.be the duty of the Probate Judge in each county of 
this State, upon a written petition signed by at least thirty of the lawful 
resident adult, male and female citizens of the State over the age of 
twpnty one years, in any Township, Incorporated Village, Town, Ward, 
or City, in this county, to make an order on the journal or his court, di- 
recting that the Trustees and Clerk in said Townships, or the Mayor and 
Council and Clerk of any Incorporated Village, Town or City shall give 
notice by publication in two newspapers in general circulation in said 
county, at least ten daj^s before the first Monday in May, — of each suc- 
ceeding year after the passage of this act, that on said first Monday in 
May the.y shall receive at their respective offices, or places of doing busi- 
ness, written or printed petitions from lawful resident, male or female 
adult citizen over twenty-one years of age, of said Townships, Incorpo- 
rated Villages, Towns,. Wards or Cities, upon the question of the sale of, 
or the prohibition of the sa^e thereof, in such Townships, Incorporated 
Villages, Towns, Wards or Cities, except for medicinal, mechanical, art 
and sacramental purposes, of all Spirituous, Vinous or Malt Liquors. 

Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the Township, Village, Town, or City 
officers named above on the first Monday in May following the giving of 
such notice, between the hours of 6 A.M. and 6 P. M. on said day, to 
receive from the male and female citizens, over the age of twenty-one 
years, who are lawful residents in the Townships, Villages, Towns, 
Wards or Cities, either their joint or several written or printed petitions, 
which petitions shall be in the following form, to-wit: — 

To (Trustees of Townships, or Mayor and Council of In- 
corporated Villages, and Cities.) We, the undersigned, lawful residents, 

male and female citizens over the age of twenty-one years, of 

(Township, Village, Town or City,) on the question of the sale of, or the 
prohibition of the sale of Spirituous, Vinous and Malt Lixuors, do here- 
by declare " Yes " for the sale, or " No " against the sale. 

Sec. 3. Said petitions when received by said Trustees or Municipal 
officers, shall be marked " filed," and attested by Township, Town, Vil- 
lage, or City Clerk, as received and filed, on the day and year aforesaid, 
and shall be forthwith enclosed in a sealed envelope, in the presence of 
the Trustees or Municipal officers, and delivered within three days after 
the time of receipt thereof, to the Probate Judge of the County wherein 
signed, directed and endorsed on the face of said envelope as follows : 

" To th' Probate Judge of County, State of Ohio, 'Petition 

of citizens of , State of Ohio, on the sale of, or prohibition 

of the sale of. Spirituous, Vinous, and Malt Liquors,'" and the Probate 
Judge, on the receipt of such petitions, shall endorse the same "filed " 
on the day of their receipt. 

Sec. 4. That it shall be the duty of the probate Judge, to whom such 
petitions are returned, within ten days after their receipt, to call to his 
assistance a Justice of the Peace, who, together with said Probate Judge, 
shall open the envelopes containing said petitions, and in the presence 



l60 APPENDIX. 

of the public count the names of the petitioners thereon, and continue 
such count from day to day until the count of the petitioners from the 
county in which he presides shall be completed, and if it shall appear 
from such count that a majority of the names of all the petitioners who 
have signed, of ai»y Township, Town, Village, Ward or City, shall be in 
favor of the prohibition of the sale of all Spirituous, Vinous or Malt 
Liquors, except for medicinal, mechanical, art, or sacramental purposes, 
such fact shall be certified by the Probate Judge and Justice of the Peace, 
and such certificate shall be entered upon the journal of said Probate 
Court, and thereupon such prohibition shall become absolute therein. 

Sec. 5. If any male or female person shall sign said petition, who is 
not a lawful adult citizen of the State, over the age of twenty-one 
years, in any Township, Incorporated Village, Town, Ward or City, in 
which he or she has not a lawful residence, such persons shall be subject 
to the sume penalties attatched to the violation of the Election Laws of 
the State. 

Sec. 6. That from and after the entry of the certificate on the journal 
of the Probate Court, as provided in the foregoing section, it shall be 
unlawful for any person to Sell, Barter, Give away, or to Expose for 
sale in any way, or at any place, any Spirituous, Vinous or Malt Liquors, 
in any Township, Incorporated Village, Town, Ward or City, to any per- 
son, and any one who shall so Seli, Barter, Giveaway, or Offer any such 
Liquors, except for medicinal purposes, on a prescription issued by a 
graduated practicing physician, or for legitimate, mechanical, art, or 
sacramental purposes, shall be deemed guilty of a criminal offense, and 
be prosecuted by information or indictment, in such form and manner 
as is prescribed by the Criminal Code of Ohio, for other criminal offens- 
es against the laws, and upon conviction, be fined not less than fifty nor 
more than two hundred dollars, and be confined in the county jail not 
less than ten days ; nor more than thirty days, and no physician shall 
make or sign any such prescription except the person for whom it is 
made is actually sick, and such liquor is absolutely required as a med- 
icine; and any physician who makes or signs any prescription for such 
liquors, except as provided for in this act, shall be guilty of a violation 
of this act, and on conviction, fined fifty dollars for each oflFense. 

Sec. 7. The necessary expense for carrying out the provisions of 
this act shall be paid by the municipal authorities in Incorporated 
Towns, Villages or Cities, and by the Trustees of townships in which the 
provisions of this act are availed of, from the several municipal or town- 
ship funds, and all officers of the law and publishers of notices, for their 
services under this act, shall be allowed such fees as are allowed by law 
for similar services. 

Sec. 8. This act shall be enforced from and after the date of its pas- 
sage. 



H. B. No. 739, proposed by Mr. Eylar, of Adams, to 
the Sixty-third General Assembly of Ohio, but which never 
came to a vote : 

A BILL 

To regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors. 

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly oj the State oj 
Ohio, That it shall be the duty of the probate judge in each county of 



APPENDIX. l6l 

this State, upon a written petition, signed by at least of the 

legal voters in any township, incorporated village, ward, or city in his 
county, to make an order on the journal of his court, directing that the 
judges of election in said township, incorporated Village, ward, or city, 
open a poll in said township, incorporated village, ward, or city, at the 
next regular spring or fall election for the election of municipal and 
township officers, or state and county officers, for the purpose of taking 
the sense of the legal voters in said township, incorporated village, ward 
or city upon the question whether or not spirituous, vinous, or malt 
liquors shall be sold therein. 

Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the probate judge making such order 
to cause the same to be published in some weekly or daily paper pub- 
lished in the county, for at least two weeks prior to such election, and 
also to advertise the same by written or printed hand-bills, posted in at 
least five conspicuous places in said township, incorporated village, 
ward, or city, all of which shall be done at the expense of said township, 
incorporated village, ward, or city in which such vote is to be taken. 

Sec. 3. Such election shall be held in the same manner, and under 
the sane regulations, as control other elections. Each voter, who may 
vote on the question, shall have upon his ballot, written or printed, the 
words : " For the sale of intoxicating liquors — Yes" ; or, " For the sale of 
intoxicating liquors — No." 

Sec. 4 The polls of said election vshall be counted and certified as 
other polls in said election, and shall be returned to the probate judge of 
said county in which election has been held, within two days from the 
time of such election. 

Sec. 5. That it shall be the duty of the probate judge, to whom such 
polls shall be returned within ten days, to call to his assistance a justice 
of the peace, who, together with said probate judge, shall open said re- 
turn and determine the result of said election ; and, if it shall appear 
that a majority of all the votes cast at said election shall be in favor ot 
the prohibition of the sale of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, such 
fact shall be certified by the probate judge and justice of the peace, and 
such certificate shall be entered upon the journal of said probate court; 
and, thereupon, such prohibition shall become effectual. 

Sec. 6. That from and after the entry of the certificate on the jour- 
nal of the probate court, as provided for in the foregoing section, it shall 
be unlawful for any person to sell any spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors 
in the said township, incorporated village, ward, or city, to any person; 
and any person who sells any such liquors in said township, incorpora- 
ted village, ward, or city, shall be prosecuted in the proper court, by in- 
formation or indictment, and, upon conviction, be fined not less than 
twenty-five dollars nor more than one hiiindred dollars, and be confined 
in the jail of the county not less than ten days or more than thirty. 

Sec. 7. The provisions of this act shall not apply to any manufactur- 
er or wholesale dealer, who, in good faith, and in the usual course of 
trade, sells by the wholesale, nor to druggists who sell for medicinal 
purposes, on a prescription made and signed by a regular practicing 
physician ; but no physician shall make or sign any such prescription 
except the person for whom it is made is actually sick, and such liquors are 
absolutely required as a medicine; and any physician who makes or 
signs any prescription for such liquors, except as provided for in this 
act, shall be guilty of a violation of this act, and, on conviction, fined 
twenty-five dollars for each offense. 

Sec 8. That not more than one vote shall be taken upon the pro- 
positions as provided for by this act, oftener than once in two years. 
Sec. 9. This act to be in force from and after its passage. 



1 62 APPENDIX. 

PENNSYLVANIA LOCAL OPTION LAW, 2 VOL. PENN. STATUTES P. 956, PASSED 
MARCH 27. 1872. 

Sec. 1. On the third Friday in March, 1873, in every city and 
county in this commonwealth, and at the annual municipal elections 
every third year thereafter, in every such city and county, (it shall be 
the duty of the inspectors and judges of elections in the cities and 
counties, to receive tickets either written or printed, from the legal 
voters of said cities and counties, labled on the outside " licensed," and 
on the inside, tor license or against license, and to deposit said tickets in 
a box provided for that purpose by said inspectors and judges, as is re- 
quired by law in the case of other tickets received at said election ; and 
the tickets so received shall be counted, and a return of the same made 
to the clerk of the court of quarter sessions of the peace of the proper, 
county, duly certified as is required by law ; which certificate shall be 
laid before the judges of the said court, at the first meeting of said court 
after said election shall be held, and shall be filed with the other records 
of said court ; and it shall be the duty of mayors of cities, and sherifis 
of counties, or of any other officer, whose duty it may be to perform 
such services, to give due public notice of such special election above 
provided for, three weeks previous to the time of holding the same, and 
also three weeks before such election every third year thereafter : Pro- 
vided, that this act shall not be constructed to repeal or affect any 
special law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors, or prohibiting 
the granting of license; Provided, that when the municipal and town- 
ship elections in any county or city do not occur on the third Friday in 
March, the election provided for in this section shall be held on the day 
fixed for the municipal elections in said county; And Provided further, 
that all licenses granted after the first day of January, 1873 shall pease, 
determine .ind become void on the first day of April, 1873, if the district 
for which they are granted determines against the granting of license ; 
and the treasurer of the proper county shall then refund, to the holder 
of such license, the moneys so paid therefor, for which the said treasurer 
shall be entitled to credit in his accounts with the commonwealth. 

Sec. 2. Tn receiving and counting, and in making returns of the 
votes cast, the inspectors and judges, and clerks of said election shall be 
governed by the laws of this commonwealth regulating general elections; 
and the penalties of said election laws are hereby extended to, and shall 
apply to the voters, inspectors, judges and clerks, voting at, and in at- 
tendance upon elections held under the provisions of this act. When- 
ever, by the returns of elections in any city or county aforesaid, it shall 
appear that there is a majority against license, it shall not be lawful 
for any court or board of license commissioners to issue any license for 
the sale of spirituous, vinous, malt or other intoxicating liquors, or any 
admixture thereof, in said town or county, at any time thereafter, until at 
an election as above provided, a majority shall vote in favor ot license. 
Provided, that nothing contained in the provisions of this act shall pre- 
vent the issuing of license to druggists for the sale of liquors for medi- 
cinal and manufacturing purposes; Provided, the citizens of the 
borough of Lebanon shall vote upon the question on the third Friday of 
March 1873, on the same day and time when the townships of the county 
of Lebanon hold their spring election. 



APPENDIX. 163 

The following is the Remonstrance of the Ohio Liquor 
Dealers' Association, sent to the Sixty-third General As- 
sembly while the Quinby Bill was pending : 

Hall of the Protective League, Cor. Lake and Ontario Sts ") 
Cleveland, Ohio, March 5th, 1879. / 

To the Honorable, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
Members thereof, Greeting: 

Gentlemen — The Ohio Liquor Dealers' Association in convention as- 
sembled this day passed most unanimously the following resolutions : 

Whereas, bills are now pending in the Legislature, purporting to in- 
corporate the so called Option Law principle into the laws of our State, 
therefore be it hereby 

Resolved, That the passage of anj'' law establishing discrimination be- 
tween the several branches of industry and commerce is detrimental to 
the best interests of the people, and in contradiction to the express provi- 
sions and spirit of our constitution. 

Second. That the bills above referred to, deferring the question in regard 
to and relating to the right to sell liquor in the respective townships is 
wrong in principle, and destructive to the personal right of the people 
who may be in the minority in such townships. 

Third. That the right of property of persons engaged in the manufac- 
ture or sale of wine, beer and liquor, would be left to the mercy and 
good-will of the majority of voters of townships, contrary to the provi- 
sions of our constitution, and contrary to the principles of right and jus- 
tice. 

Fourth. That the principle sought to be established by the bills re- 
ferred to involves the power of the majority of votes of a township to 
suppress the rights and jeopardize the property of the minority ; tending 
to destroy the harmony and good feeling of the people of such townships, 
and to create and call forth constant strife an/i collisions. 

Fifth. That all legislation, by which the casual majority of the voters 
of any of the townships of the State, are made the final judges of grave 
and important questions of a general character, is repugnant to any and 
all principles of a Republican Government. 

Sixth. That experience has shown, that in all States wherein the option 
law principle has become incorporated into a law, the cause of temper- 
ance has not been promoted ; but on the contrary such so called option 
laws have always and continually proven a prolific source of demogogi- 
cal schemes and plunder, at the cost and expense of the people at large. 

Seven. That none of the laws heretofore enacted, or now existing on 
our statute books have been subject to such earnest and grave objections, 
as the option laws which are subversive of public policy and all princi- 
ples of State government alike, aside from their pernicious and ruinous 
effect upon the peace, harmony and the best interests of the people. 

Eighth. That our Representatives and benators in the General As^- 
sembly, are respectfully requested to withhold their assent to the so-call- 
ed Option Bills, and that they be further requested to conscientiously do 
all in their power to prevent the passage of any and all Option Bills. 

On behalf of the instruction received by and through the officers and 
members of the Ohio Liquor Dealers' Protective Association. 

C. C. Schellentrager, Secretary. 



f' 



